recognizing that athletic trainers are entitled to discretionary immunity
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that athletic trainers are entitled to discretionary immunity
- victim could not sue coach for failure to recognize an injury soon enough
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
If it were not for the majority opinion in Taylor v. Shoemaker , 605 So.2d 828 (Ala. 1992), I would dissent, because I believe that this case is DeStafney v. University of Alabama , 413 So.2d 391 (Ala. 1982). However, between DeStafney and this case stands Taylor v. Shoemaker , in which the concept of "discretionary function" immunity was extended to factual situations in which there was no discernible discretion involved. I dissented in Taylor , asking "Where is the discretion?" 605 So.2d at 835 . I still do not know, but I am bound by stare decisis. I do know that if there was a "discretionary function" in Taylor , then there was a "discretionary function" in this case.