# Giambrone v. Douglas > Supreme Court of Alabama · August 1, 2003 · 874 So. 2d 1046 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935261 ## Case - **Full name:** Susan Giambrone, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of Jake Giambrone, a Minor v. Michael Douglas - **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama - **Decided:** August 1, 2003 - **Citations:** 874 So. 2d 1046; 2003 WL 21771773 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by See - **Judges:** Lyons, See - **Cited by:** 114 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/9935261 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that a wrestling coach was “exercising judgment” while conducting wrestling practice; however, the wrestling coach was not protected by Cranman because he was acting contrary to clearly established guidelines when he accidently paralyzed a team member during a “challen… - recognizing that a plaintiff can show that a State agent acted beyond his or her authority by proffering evidence that the State agent failed “ ‘to discharge duties pursuant to detailed rules or regulations, such as those stated on a checklist’ ” (quoting Ex parte Butts, 775 S… - holding that state-agent immunity “is not abrogated for negligent and wanton behavior; instead, immunity is withheld only upon a showing that the State agent acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, or beyond his or her authority” - holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a wrestling coach was entitled to State-agent immunity because evidence was presented indicating that specific guidelines and rules had been provided to the coach, thus removing the coach's discretion - holding that, once it is shown that a state agent was undertaking a discretionary function, the burden, shifts to the plaintiff to disprove the defendant’s entitlement to immunity ## Opinion text As I understand the main opinion, the Court reverses the summary judgment in favor of Michael Douglas, the former head wrestling coach, because Douglas engaged in an "`inequitable' challenge match" with Jake, a student, in which Douglas performed an allegedly "illegal" move, i.e., a move not permitted under the guidelines and rules promulgated by the AHSAA and the NFW, and, therefore, Douglas is not entitled to State-agent immunity. I agree that Douglas's actions in engaging in an "`inequitable' challenge match" with Jake fell outside the protection of the doctrine of State-agent immunity and that Douglas is therefore subject to suit for the injuries Jake allegedly sustained as a result of that violation. I do not believe, however, that, standing alone, Douglas's alleged failure to properly execute a wrestling move is a sufficient independent basis for denying State-agent immunity. This Court has afforded educators State-agent immunity to protect them in their exercise of discretion in educating students. See Ex parte Nall , [Ms. 1012099, June 6, 2003] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 2003); Ex parte Spivey , [Ms. 1011128, September 27, 2002] 846 So.2d 322 (Ala. 2002); Ex parte Blankenship , 806 So.2d 1186 , 1190 (Ala. 2000); Lennon v. Petersen , 624 So.2d 171 , 173-74 (1993). Teachers perform a public responsibility; to deny teachers State-agent immunity and to require them to defend themselves in civil actions brought by students or parents would discourage them in the performance of their public responsibility. 5 *Page 1058 In this case, the parties do not argue that Douglas's employment prohibited him from conducting practice drills and demonstrating proper and improper wrestling holds in order to educate his students. There are a multitude of rules in all sports — football, basketball, gymnastics — that for safety and other reasons deem certain moves "illegal." If a coach merely fails to properly perform a move that if properly performed would be "legal," then I cannot agree that his or her actions will for that reason fall outside the scope of State-agent immunity and subject the coach to litigation. A coach's flawed demonstration of a tackle, a tag, or a wrestling hold, absent other circumstances, should not remove the coach from the protection afforded by the doctrine of State-agent immunity. BROWN, J., concurs. 5 See Siegert v. Gilley , 500 U.S. 226 , 232 (1991) ("One of the purposes of immunity, absolute and qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit."); Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511 , 526 (stating that qualified immunity "is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial"). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935261. Public record. Not legal advice.