Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2010 ( Volume 4 ( No. 23 dinance "). Nix interpreted the Ordinance as preventing off - premise signs that were more than 50% destroyed from being rebuilt. On ap- peal, the City's Board of Adjustment (the "Board ") eventually deter- mined that, pursuant to the Board's interpretation of the Ordinance, BSA could rebuild its off - premise signs. In the meantime, BSA had sued the City and Nix. Among other things, it asked the court to award it damages related to Nix's interpreta- tion of the Ordinance, initially precluding BSA from rebuilding its signs. The City and Nix argued that BSA's claim failed under the doctrine of substantive immunity. That doctrine "shields municipalities from li- ability for the negligent acts of their employees" in certain governmen- tal activities. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and decid- ing the matter on the law alone, the trial court issued summary judg- ment in favor of the City and Nix. BSA appealed to, the Alabama Supreme Court. That court trans- ferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. The Court's Decision: Judgment of trial court affirmed. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama held that the City and Nix were entitled to substantive immunity from BSA's claim for damages related to the interpretation of the Ordinance precluding BSA from rebuilding its signs. In so holding, the court acknowledged that judicial municipal im- munity from tort liability has been abolished since 1975. Municipali- ties therefore are generally subject to liability from the negligent acts of their employees. However, the doctrine of substantive immunity continues to shield municipalities from liability for the negligent acts of their employees "in those narrow areas of governmental activities essential to the well -being of the governed ...." It also shields munici- pal employees involved in rendering "those services `essential to the well -being of the governed. "' Thus, neither a municipality nor a mu- nicipal official can be liable under a negligence claim brought by an individual citizen for a "breach of duty owed to the general public." Municipalities and municipal officials can only liable under a negli- gence claim brought by an individual citizen if the municipality or municipal official owe a duty to that particular individual. In the context of zoning, the court explained, "zoning powers are a public- service activity and may not be exercised for the benefit of individual landowners to the exclusion of the interests and well -being of all citizens of a county or municipality." Although zoning decisions may provide an incidental benefit to an individual citizen, when mu- nicipal officials exercise their zoning power for the benefit of the mu- nicipality, the zoning decision creates no duty owed by the officials to © 2010 Thomson Reuters 3