# Lennon v. Petersen

> Supreme Court of Alabama · July 16, 1993 · 624 So. 2d 171

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932145

## Case

- **Full name:** Patrick Lennon v. Carlos Petersen and Debbie Lee.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** July 16, 1993
- **Citations:** 624 So. 2d 171; 1993 WL 262042
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Houston
- **Judges:** Houston, Shores
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932145

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that athletic trainers are entitled to discretionary immunity

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932145. Public record. Not legal advice.