 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Locke v. Ozark City Board of Education4/15/2005
la. 1995)(quoting Young v. Huntsville Hosp., 595 So. 2d 1386, 1387 (Ala. 1992)). While this is a correct statement of law, the principle applies to claims sounding in tort, not to those in contract. See Steiger, 653 So. 2d at 978 ("We have noted, '"It is difficult to impose liability on one person for an intentional criminal act committed by a third person."' In this case, the Board has no tort liability. The only liability it could have to plaintiff Steiger is through a contract theory.")(citations omitted). Locke has presented evidence indicating that one of the purposes of the contract was providing "good game administration and supervision ...." Viewed in a light most favorable to Locke, this evidence creates a question of material fact as to whether the Board had a contractual duty to protect Locke from the criminal acts of third parties at sporting events by providing adequate police protection.
VI.
Finally, the Board argues that it did not breach the contract with the AHSAA. The Board concedes that the AHSAA Directory "provides that the school principal is required to insure good game administration and supervision by providing for adequate police protection." The Board, however, also offers testimony from Dan Washburn, the executive director of the ASHAA, to the effect that the ASHAA has recommended that "security at non-revenue games ... be in the form of administrators ...." Nevertheless, "' t is elementary that it is the terms of the written contract, not the mental operations of one of the parties, that control its interpretation.'" Harbison v. Strickland, [Ms. 1030591, Oct. 22, 2004] __ So. 2d __, __ (Ala. 2004)(quoting Kinmon v. J.P. King Auction Co., 290 Ala. 323, 325, 276 So. 2d 569, 570 (1973)). The AHSAA Directory specifically provides that "adequate police protection" is to be provided at all athletic events sponsored by the AHSAA. Locke has offered undisputed evidence that there was no police protection at the baseball game at which he was injured and that the Board provided police protection at other athletic events. Further, a letter sent by the AHSAA to the Board, fining the Board for the incident involving Locke, specifically cites the fact that no police protection was provided at the baseball game. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Board provided "adequate" police protection at the baseball game at which Locke was injured under its contract with the AHSAA; therefore, a summary judgment is not appropriate as to this issue.
VII.
Locke has presented substantial evidence indicating that the Board and the AHSAA intended to provide a direct benefit to umpires, that he was an intended direct beneficiary of the contract, and that the Board breached the contract. Locke's complaint sounds in contract, and the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to Locke, presents a question of material fact as to whether the Board had a contractual duty to protect Locke from the criminal acts of third parties and whether the Board did in fact provide adequate police protection at the game. For these reasons, a summary judgment was not appropriate. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the Board is reversed, and this case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Nabers, C.J., and Harwood, Stuart, and Bolin, JJ., concur.
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.
|
|