Ex parte Charles Bitel et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Linda Sanders, as next friend and parent of S.E. v. Kerry Horton et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:03/12/2010 N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e Courts, 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1081783 Ex p a r t e C h a r l e s B i t e l et a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: L i n d a S a n d e r s , as n e x t friend and p a r e n t o f S.E. v. Kerry Horton e t a l . ) (Perry C i r c u i t BOLIN, The Court, CV-08-38) Justice. following Department supervisory of Public Safety employees with ("the Department") t h e Alabama filed this 1081783 petition f o ra writ Wiggins basis o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g to dismiss Linda Sanders's that Roscoe they Howell, Manlief, are e n t i t l e d highway trooper claims J u d g e M a r v i n Wayne against them on t h e to State-agent immunity: patrol division chief; commander; M a j . C h a r l e s Maj. Capt. Andrews, Mike service division c h i e f ; L t . Durwood W h i t e , p o s t commander-Selma; S g t . Jermaine Isaac, Burch, Trooper Bitel, Trooper Kerry Horton's Kerry Trooper sometimes Kerry referred S.E., supervisors. Horton's and C p l . C h a r l e s supervisor Horton director of the Department; and t h e s u p e r v i s o r s t h e f o l l o w i n g : That H o r t o n made a t r a f f i c in which Allah on o r a b o u t were and t h e sued B i s h o p was t a k e n i n t o that J u n e 4, 2 0 0 8 , as a r e s u l t custody by another i n both The c o m p l a i n t stop o f a v e h i c l e d r i v e n by A l l a h S.E. was a p a s s e n g e r ; H o r t o n was l e f t and p a r e n t o f State Trooper Kerry Horton; C o l . J . t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l and t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s . alleged (hereinafter as " t h e s u p e r v i s o r s " ) . 3, 2 0 0 8 , S a n d e r s , a s n e x t f r i e n d Murphy, C p l . Jason and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y sued t h e Department; Christopher supervisor; to c o l l e c t i v e l y Facts On O c t o b e r Horton's supervisor; Trooper Bishop of that stop officer; that a l o n e w i t h S.E.; t h a t H o r t o n h a d S.E. g e t i n t o 2 1081783 his police that car; that Horton which Horton making rejected; she began that then drove sexual Horton that Horton requested that Horton forcibly that Horton her The The not trial trial to mention court court advancements sex from S.E. kissed on S.E. the supervisors, R. Civ. P., t h e y moved t h e t r i a l against them in defense of the t r i a l The happened. asking this filed Court Sanders's claims immunity. On file immunity. capacities. upon 12(b)(6), the capacities In response petition direct against October a Rule C o l . Murphy Ala. complaint. a l l claims based to the on the motion, the c l a i m s a g a i n s t o n l y C o l . Murphy. this to defendant. a g a i n s t C o l . Murphy court to dismiss individual court dismissed supervisors and solely Specifically, State-agent and refused; and a l l claims based their S.E. S.E.; breast; thereafter, filed motion onto t h e D e p a r t m e n t as a also dismissed S.E., to Bishop's v e h i c l e back and t h e s u p e r v i s o r s i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l and and area; toward semen the neck what had dismissed to another ejaculated e v e n t u a l l y t o o k S.E. advised oral S.E. 14, an a n s w e r a n d b r i e f , the them on for a trial the 3 she of court basis 2009, t h i s C o u r t which writ to of dismiss State-agent ordered d i d n o t do. mandamus Sanders to Accordingly, 1081783 we have before includes a copy us only the supervisors' petition, which of the complaint. Applicable Law and Standard of Review " I n a s m u c h as t h e i s s u e b e f o r e us i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l court c o r r e c t l y denied a Rule 12(b)(6), A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , ' [ t ] h i s C o u r t m u s t a c c e p t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t as t r u e . ' Creola Land Dev., Inc. v. Bentbrooke Housing, L . L . C . , 828 So. 2 d 2 8 5 , 288 ( A l a . 2002). Moreover, as the defendants sought only a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal without resort to facts supplied by a f f i d a v i t or other e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l o u t s i d e the a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , and as t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c c o r d i n g l y t r e a t e d t h e m o t i o n o n l y as w h a t i t w a s , a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s and n o t a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment w i t h evidentiary materials outside the allegations of the complaint, those allegations themselves are the o n l y p o t e n t i a l source of f a c t u a l support f o r the defendants' claims of immunity. Rule 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; M o o n e y h a m v . S t a t e B d . o f C h i r o p r a c t i c E x a m i n e r s , 802 So. 2 d 200 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; G a r r i s v . F e d e r a l L a n d B a n k o f J a c k s o n , 584 So. 2 d 791 ( A l a . 1991); H a l e s v. First Nat'l Bank of M o b i l e , 380 So. 2 d 797 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . "'"Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon the r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , accompanied b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 (Ala. 1995) Our review is further l i m i t e d t o t h o s e f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e the trial c o u r t . Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n Resources Ins. Co., 663 So. 2 d 9 3 2 , 936 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . ' 4 1081783 "Ex 789 parte (Ala. National 1998). S e c . I n s . Co., 727 S o . 2 d 7 88 , "'The a p p r o p r i a t e standard of review under Rule 12(b)(6) i s whether, when the allegations of the complaint are viewed most s t r o n g l y i n t h e p l e a d e r ' s f a v o r , i t appears t h a t t h e p l e a d e r c o u l d prove any set of circumstances that would entitle [him] to relief. In making this d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s Court does n o t c o n s i d e r whether the p l a i n t i f f will ultimately p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y w h e t h e r [ h e ] may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . We n o t e a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s b e y o n d d o u b t that the p l a i n t i f f c a n p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n support of the c l a i m that would e n t i t l e the p l a i n t i f f to r e l i e f . ' " N a n c e v . M a t t h e w s , 622 S o . 2 d 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) (citations omitted). Accord Cook v. L l o y d N o l a n d F o u n d . , I n c . , 825 S o . 2 d 8 3 , 89 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d C.B. v . B o b o , 659 S o . 2 d 9 8 , 104 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . 'We construe a l l doubts regarding the s u f f i c i e n c y of the complaint i n favor of the p l a i n t i f f . ' Ex parte Haralson, 853 S o . 2 d 928 , 931 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . ' [ A ] motion to dismiss i s t y p i c a l l y not the appropriate v e h i c l e b y w h i c h t o a s s e r t ... q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y o r State-agent immunity and ... normally the d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s u c h a d e f e n s e s h o u l d be r e s e r v e d u n t i l t h e summary-judgment s t a g e , f o l l o w i n g a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c o v e r y . ' Ex p a r t e Alabama D e p ' t o f M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n , 837 S o . 2d 808, 813-14 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . " Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f Y o u t h S e r v s . , (Ala. 880 S o . 2 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 7 - 9 8 2003). State-Agent 5 Immunity 1081783 The agent this and supervisors claim immunity under the Court in adopted Ex in Ex Specifically, complaint parte asserts Cranman, maintain a cause of which, they say, factors forth that Sanders's supervisors faith, agent in Ex complaint entitled f o r t h by to State- a plurality 2d 392 (Ala. 2000), 775 So. 2d 173 (Ala. 2000). count action falls for IV of negligent Sanders's hiring within category Cranman. no They (2) also allegations of so as to and the maintain that the maliciously, fraudulently, in authority of So. makes acted w i l l f u l l y , or beyond t h e i r set that parte are 792 Butts, supervision, set they standard parte they that remove t h e i r bad State- immunity. In restated Ex parte the rule Cranman, 792 So. 2d governing State-agent at 405, this Court immunity: "A State agent shall be immune from civil l i a b i l i t y i n h i s or her p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y when t h e c o n d u c t made t h e basis of the claim against the agent i s b a s e d upon the a g e n t ' s "(1) formulating plans, policies, or d e s i g n s ; or "(2) exercising his or her judgment i n the administration of a department or agency of government, i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , examples such as: "(a) making adjudications; administrative 6 1081783 "(b) allocating "(c) resources; negotiating contracts; "(d) hiring, firing, transferring, assigning, or supervising personnel; or " ( 3 ) d i s c h a r g i n g d u t i e s i m p o s e d on a d e p a r t m e n t or agency by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n , i n s o f a r as t h e s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n p r e s c r i b e s t h e manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e d u t i e s and t h e S t a t e agent p e r f o r m s t h e d u t i e s i n t h a t manner; o r "(4) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n t h e enforcement o f the c r i m i n a l laws o f t h e S t a t e , i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , law-enforcement o f f i c e r s ' a r r e s t i n g or attempting to arrest persons; or "(5) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n t h e d i s c h a r g e o f d u t i e s imposed by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n i n r e l e a s i n g prisoners, counseling or r e l e a s i n g persons of unsound mind, or e d u c a t i n g students. "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary i n the f o r e g o i n g statement of the r u l e , a State agent s h a l l n o t b e immune f r o m c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r personal capacity " ( 1 ) when t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o r l a w s o f t h e U n i t e d States, or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated f o r the purpose of regulating the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or "(2) when the State agent acts willfully, m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond h i s or h e r a u t h o r i t y , o r under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e l a w . " 7 1081783 Although pleaded, the complaint i t appears that l i a b l e b a s e d on c l a i m s and assault quote on the the p e r t i n e n t parts this case i s not Sanders a l l e g e s that are and in of negligence, theory of the of the supervisors the t o r t respondeat complaint: artfully of outrage, superior. We 1 "Count I I I "27. "28. On or [Horton] S.E. about June assaulted "2 9. As a proximate result of the assault ... Plaintiff received the following injuries and damages: a. She suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish/emotional distress; b. She was embarrassed and humiliated; [and] c. She was unlawfully detained. "Count 4, 2008 , Plaintiff, IV "30. "31. D e f e n d a n t s ... f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y train and/or supervise ... Horton, resulting in his inability to apply the correct state policy regarding q u e s t i o n i n g and i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h c i t i z e n s during a t r a f f i c stop. C o u n t I was d i s m i s s e d a n d c o u n t action against only Horton. 1 8 II alleges a cause of 1081783 "32. Defendants failed to conduct p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g i n order to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r ... H o r t o n i s a f i t and p r o p e r p e r s o n t o c a r r y a weapon and e n f o r c e t h e laws of the S t a t e of Alabama. "33. Defendants failed to provide current training, testing, and seminars to determine ... Horton's current mental and physical fitness to continually f u n c t i o n i n h i s c a p a c i t y as an Alabama S t a t e Trooper. "34. As a proximate result of the negligent training/supervision committed by ... Horton, P l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d the f o l l o w i n g injuries and damages: a. She s u f f e r e d and c o n t i n u e s t o s u f f e r mental anguish and emotional d i s t r e s s ; b . She was embarrassed a n d h u m i l i a t e d ; [ a n d ] c. She was unlawfully detained. "Count V "35. "36. I t i s a v e r r e d [that] each a c t of ... Horton giving rise to l i a b i l i t y , as p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , [was a] non-discretionary function[] i n t h a t none o f t h e a c t s were w i t h i n the authority g r a n t e d ... H o r t o n b y t h e S t a t e of Alabama. It i s also averred: "a. The nature importance of functions performed 9 and the by 1081783 H o r t o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y the act of sexual[ly] assaulting Plaintiff, S.E. "b. The extent and i m p o s i t i o n of liability for ... Horton's acts w i l l h a v e no [ e ] f f e c t on the impairment of the free exercise of ... H o r t o n ' s or o t h e r P a t r o l Officer's exercise of discretion. Nor would the imposition of liability be vexatious or l i k e l y to a f f e c t the proper exercise of discretion. "37. I t i s a v e r r e d [ t h a t ] ... H o r t o n ' s a c t s as p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d e x c e e d e d the general scope of the authority granted him by the S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and reasonably necessary to serve in the c a p a c i t y of a Highway P a t r o l m a n . "38. K e r r y H o r t o n ' s a c t s as p r e v i o u s l y stated were of a tortious character. It is further alleged [ t h a t ] ... H o r t o n ' s a c t s w e r e n o t p r i v i l e g e d i n t h a t they 'exceeded or abused the privilege' specifically afforded 'public officers' while engaged i n the exercise of discretionary function. "39. As a proximate result of the violation of non-discretionary f u n c t i o n s , the p l a i n t i f f received 10 1081783 the following injuries and damages: a. She suffered and continues to suffer mental a n g u i s h and emotional d i s t r e s s ; b. She was embarrassed and humiliated; [and] c. She was unlawfully detained. "40. Plaintiff damages. claims "Count punitive VI "41. "42. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of ... Horton, stated m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y h e r e i n , i s so o u t r a g e o u s and unconscionable a b e h a v i o r as t o s h o c k t h e social c o n s c i e n c e of the community and to deviate from the socially a c c e p t e d norms and standards of t h e c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e . "43. As a proximate result of the violation of non-discretionary f u n c t i o n s , the p l a i n t i f f received the following injuries and damages: a. She suffered and continues to suffer mental a n g u i s h and emotional d i s t r e s s ; b. She was embarrassed and humiliated; [and] c. She was unlawfully detained. "44. "Count "45. 11 VII 1081783 "46. This count is based on a respondeat superior relationship between the Defendants, Kerry H o r t o n and D e f e n d a n t , D e p a r t m e n t of Public Safety or Unknown Parties, in that a l l times material hereto, Kerry Horton was an a g e n t , e m p l o y e e o r s e r v a n t o f the Department of P u b l i c Safety a n d / o r U n k n o w n P a r t i e s [and] was a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and scope of i t s employment." (Emphasis added.) Once i t i s d e t e r m i n e d that State-agent State-agent immunity i s withheld agent acted faith, or beyond h i s 405. At Sanders within this willfully, first glance, complains category Court is of required c o m p l a i n t most s t r o n g l y at this their stage whether authority in detailed rules authority and o r she "fail[s] the or IV of C r a n m a n , 792 the her view complaint the failing supervisors to i s therefore not A duties State 2d of fall bad agent squarely because in acted the out beyond pursuant acts liability at which cannot r u l e have immune f r o m to d i s c h a r g e d u t i e s 12 may discharge regulations. So. However, we State in allegations i n Sanders's favor, the the activities Cranman f o r m u l a . to applies, fraudulently, authority. i t appears that i n count (2) upon a s h o w i n g t h a t maliciously, or her immunity to beyond when pursuant to d e t a i l e d he rules 1081783 or regulations, parte Butts, Sanders 775 does departmental violated, policy." as t h o s e So. 2d not r e f e r rules Count stated 1 7 3 , 178 i n her IV of refers her Butts, (Ala. a checklist." 2000). to any the supervisors i n paragraph complaint t e s t i n g " and " c u r r e n t I n Ex p a r t e on complaint or regulations she n o n e t h e l e s s "psychological seminars." such this training, Court Although specific allegedly 31 t o also "state references t e s t i n g , and stated: " G i v e n t h e q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d b y t h i s mandamus petition--whether t h e e m p l o y e e s a r e e n t i t l e d t o an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e f a m i l i e s ' c l a i m s made a g a i n s t them i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , on t h e g r o u n d t h a t as t o t h o s e c l a i m s t h e f a m i l i e s ' c o m p l a i n t does not s t a t e a g a i n s t them any c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f can be g r a n t e d - - w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e s have n o t s h o w n t h a t t h e y h a v e 'a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t ... t o the o r d e r s o u g h t . ' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , ... 628 S o . 2 d [ 5 0 1 ] a t 5 0 3 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ] . A t f i r s t b l u s h , i t a p p e a r s t h a t some c l a i m s , s u c h as those regarding the use of personnel, h i r i n g and supervising personnel, and t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of the d e m o l i t i o n p l a n , a r e due t o be d i s m i s s e d , pursuant t o t h e Cranman t e s t . However, i f any employee f a i l e d to discharge duties pursuant to d e t a i l e d rules or r e g u l a t i o n s , s u c h as t h o s e s t a t e d on a c h e c k l i s t , o r acted w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond h i s a u t h o r i t y , or under a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law, then i t i s p o s s i b l e that t h a t e m p l o y e e w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y . As t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n P a t t o n [v. Black, 646 So. 2d 8 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] , ' [ i ] t i s not f o r t h i s c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e , b a s e d on t h e c o m p l a i n t , whether the p l a i n t i f f w i l l u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y i f he may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . ' 646 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 . I t i s 13 Ex 1081783 c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t the f a m i l i e s c o u l d prove f a c t s t h a t w o u l d show t h a t one o r m o r e o f t h e e m p l o y e e s f a i l e d to d i s c h a r g e d u t i e s p u r s u a n t to a c h e c k l i s t or a c t e d w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad faith, beyond his authority, or under a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law. I f so, the f a m i l i e s 'may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l ' on t h e i r c l a i m s . T h e r e f o r e , the t r i a l court p r o p e r l y denied the employees' motion to dismiss the claims stated against them i n their individual capacities. " A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s have had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o conduct discovery, the employees will have the o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e e k a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t they are e n t i t l e d to State-agent immunity. I f t h e y make s u c h a m o t i o n b a s e d on t h a t g r o u n d a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e s i t , t h e n t h e y can a g a i n ask t h i s Court to review t h e i r i m m u n i t y c l a i m s , e i t h e r by p e t i t i o n i n g for permission to appeal, pursuant to R u l e 5, A l a . R. A p p . P., o r by p e t i t i o n i n g f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 1 , A l a . R. App. P." 775 So. 2d at 178 When t h e favor, (emphasis complaint i s viewed i t i s conceivable show t h a t the added). t h a t she supervisors failed most strongly possibly prevail court properly denied claims stated against on the her to discharge claims. duties them i n t h e i r 14 motion individual Superior to would pursuant I f so, Accordingly, supervisors' Respondeat Sanders's could prove f a c t s that to s p e c i f i c d e p a r t m e n t a l r u l e s or r e g u l a t i o n s . may in Sanders the dismiss trial the capacities. 1081783 The supervisors also asks t h i s mandamus b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , Court to issue the writ of count V I I of the complaint asserts a c a u s e o f a c t i o n b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e of respondeat superior and, of respondeat superior as a m a t t e r does n o t h o l d of law, the doctrine supervisors, for the t o r t s of their the supervisors an issue other available the a Life are attempting than In making t h i s argument, t o a d d r e s s , b y mandamus immunity. that A the p l a i n t i f f ' s of respondeat writ of a motion judgment g e n e r a l l y mandamus, immunity). claim superior. I n s . C o . , 825 S o . 2 d 758 denial of subordinates. o f mandamus to review the d e n i a l of a motion to dismiss defense theory as c o - e m p l o y e e s , v i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e to dismiss or i s not reviewable subject to certain Accordingly, motion the summary f o ra writ exceptions to address on Nat'l that for a by a p e t i t i o n narrow we d e c l i n e b a s e d on Liberty 2 002)(holding a i s not c a n n o t be p r e m i s e d See Ex p a r t e (Ala. review, this such as issue. Conclusion Because source the allegations of f a c t u a l support immunity and because i n the complaint are the f o r the supervisors' a motion to dismiss 15 defense i s typically only of not the 1081783 appropriate vehicle we petition. deny t h e PETITION by w h i c h to assert State-agent immunity, DENIED. Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , Stuart, 16 and Murdock, J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.