The petition is granted to the extent it seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Parrish, and a writ is issued to that effect. See §§ 11-47-190; 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975.

The petition is otherwise denied.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the judgment issuing a writ directing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Parrish, but I must dissent from the Court’s failure to revisit this Court’s decision in Ex parte Franklin County Department of Human Resources, 674 So.2d 1277 (Ala. 1996), *535as the City requests us to do. In Ex parte Franklin County Department of Human Resources, this Court refused to adopt the collateral-order doctrine employed by the federal courts in cases presenting the issue of governmental immunity. I dissented in Ex parte Franklin County Department of Human Resources, because I thought that this Court should adopt the collateral-order doctrine. Therefore, I would accede to the City’s request and revisit our decision in Ex parte Franklin County Department of Human Resources, and I would vote to adopt the collateral-order doctrine, based on the reasons I expressed in my dissent in that case.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the judgment to the extent it directs the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Parrish.

I dissent, however, from this Court’s failure to adopt the collateral-order doctrine. See Justice Maddox’s dissent regarding this issue.