 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Phillips v. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources3/24/2000
a qualification on my willingness to follow Ex parte Cranman, [Ms. 1971903, November 24, 1999] ___ So. 2d ____ (Ala. 1999), cited by the main opinion. Specifically, I agree with the initial general paragraph and the first five numbered subparagraphs quoted from Cranman in the main opinion, see ___ So. 2d at ___, to identify what civil action theories are immunized and what civil action theories are not immunized; but I disagree with the last quoted subparagraph, the one numbered (6), because I think it is so broad that it can be interpreted to immunize civil action theories that should not be immunized and have not been immunized by our case law or by any statute or provision of our constitution. The rationale of the main opinion does not seem to depend on subparagraph (6), the part of the quoted Cranman holding that concerns me. Accordingly, I concur in all other aspects of the main opinion.
MADDOX, Justice (concurring in part and concurring in the result in part).
I concur as to Parts I and II of the opinion. Regarding Part III, I concur in the result only. The state of the record in this case is similar to the state of the record in Patton v. Black, 646 So. 2d 8 (Ala. 1994). In Patton, I stated, "I was almost persuaded that the defendant was correct in her argument that [the record showed] that the plaintiff did not state any set of facts upon which relief could be granted." 646 So.2d at 11 (Maddox, J., concurring in the result). That is the situation I find myself in with this case; consequently, as to Part III I concur in the result, as I did in Patton, 646 So.2d at 10.
|