... and procedures all [its] own.” Riley v. Perkins, 282 Ala. 629, 632, 213 So.2d 796, 798 (1968). The Act is a specific and comprehensive system of law for dealing with workplace injuries. As such, it trumps general laws that might, at first glance, seem to apply. Cf. Fulmer v. United States, 83 F.Supp. 137, 151 (N.D.Ala.1949), in which the court observed: “It is settled law that where [a legislative body] over a period of time through many enactments has dealt with a particular subject matter in such a manner as to create a complete and comprehensive system of law ..., subsequent or even prior statutes of general application, which might otherwise apply, are held to be inapplicable to the special subject matter.” See also Dollar v. City of Ashford, 677 So.2d 769 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). We hold that a worker asserting a workers’
recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding osha does not preclude an employee from pursuing a tort action for a retaliatory discharge recognizing a claim for civil liability against municipalities  under  1983 holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts holding that a municipality is liable under  255111 for the retaliatory discharge of an employee even though  1147190 provides municipalities with immunity from liability for intentional torts