 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Locke v. Ozark City Board of Education4/15/2005
the cigarette machine and that there was no need to call the police because the man had left and he (the security guard) had recovered all of the merchandise." 538 So. 2d at 14. The security guard further informed the female employees that he had apprehended the man and that they could safely enter the building to start work. Id. A short time later, a female employee, Hazel Gardner, entered a bathroom in the building where she was attacked by a second man who had apparently broken into the building. Id. Gardner and her husband sued the security company, alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Gardner argued that she was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the security company and her employer. Gardner, 538 So. 2d at 14. The company moved for a summary judgment, and the trial court granted that motion.
On appeal, this Court upheld the summary judgment for the security company. However, it was not, as the Board contends, because this Court found that Gardner was not an intended third-party beneficiary. This Court stated that " n their brief, the Gardners argue that a cause of action may exist for a third-party beneficiary for a breach of contract. We do not dispute that a cause of action may exist, but we can find no contractual duty imposed upon [the security company]." Gardner, 538 So. 2d at 15. Thus, in Gardner this Court held that the security guards did not have a contractual duty to protect Gardner inside the building; it did not hold that Gardner was not a third-party beneficiary.
The Board also cites DuPont v. Yellow Cab Co. of Birmingham, 565 So. 2d 190 (Ala. 1990), in support of its argument that Locke is not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between the Board and AHSAA. In DuPont, a school board contracted with a cab company to provide drivers and maintenance for school buses. 565 So. 2d at 192. The cab company subcontracted with another company to provide drivers for the buses. Id. One of the buses was not maintained properly, and the driver was injured when the brakes failed, causing the bus to collide with a tree. Id. at 191. The driver sued the cab company, alleging that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the school board and the cab company. Id. The trial court found that the driver was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract and entered a summary judgment for the cab company.
This Court stated that the cab company "was under an obligation, independent of the contract, to maintain its fleet of vehicles for the safety of its drivers." DuPont, 565 So. 2d at 192 (citing ยง 25-1-1, Ala. Code 1975). The contract at issue in DuPont provided solely for the transportation of students to and from school; therefore, the only group that could benefit from the contract was the students. 565 So. 2d at 192. We held, therefore, that the only "reasonable inference" that could be drawn from the contract was that the children riding the school buses, not the drivers, were the intended direct beneficiaries of the contract, and we affirmed. Dupont, 565 So. 2d at 192.
In this case, the contract between the Board and the AHSAA specifically provides that principals are to "provide good game administration and supervision by providing ... adequate police protection." Therefore, we must determine from the surrounding circumstances whether Locke is an intended direct beneficiary.
The contract before us between the Board and the AHSAA, like the one in H.R.H. and unlike the one in Zeigler, anticipates the existence of a third party. SAUA, which provided umpires, specifically Locke, for the game, provides officials only to athletic events that are sponsored by the AHSAA. The contract states that the pur
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|