Is There A Recent Interesting Alabama Legal Case?

Yes, there was a decision handed down from the Alabama Supreme Court just a few weeks ago. The occurrence was from November of 2018, so you can see how long even a civil suit might go on.

The case comes from Houston County and involves fatalities stemming from a collision between an automobile and a truck. Specifically, Raymond and Florence Trigger stopped their vehicle at their mailbox which was across the road from the driveway to their home. Raymond was driving and after checking their mail he took a right turn across two lanes of the roadway and was hit by a truck driven by Benjamin Deese, who was driving home from work. Florence’s side of the car was hit and she died at the scene of the accident. Raymond had injuries and died two months after the accident. The law suit was brought by Jerald Brown , the Personal Representative of the Estate of Raymond Trigger and Florence Trigger, The jury returned a verdict for the estates represented by Jerald Brown, in the amount of $50,000 for the Estate of Florence Trigger but only $1 for the Estate of Raymond Trigger.

The two sides argued about causation and contributory negligence. What is contributory negligence? I’m glad you asked. While contributory negligence ended up not factoring into this case, it is an interesting legal theory used in Alabama and only a few other states. In contributory negligence, even if one party was primarily negligent, but the other party was determined to have contributed even one scintilla of negligence to the situation, then neither party can recover anything. The majority of the states look at comparative negligence. In that situation, as an example we will say that Deese had contributed 60% to the negligent cause of the accident and Raymond Trigger had contributed 40% of the negligence by turning across two lanes rather than taking a safer approach. In that made up example Trigger had the lesser contributing percent, his estate would have prevailed. But because he contributed 40% of the negligence then his estate would only receive the difference in what an award would normally be. In Alabama using contributory negligence, the award would have been zero. However, any other available legal theories may be available and result in an award for the Trigger estates.

Going back to the case, the jury was instructed on what negligence and wantoness are which was tied to Deese. Additionally, contributory negligence was discussed as well as the rules of the road and damages. The trial court was clear when the jury was told, "If Raymond['s] ... conduct was contributory negligen[ce], he cannot recover on his claim that ... Deese was negligent. ... If you find that both parties were guilty of simple negligence and each is a proximate contributing cause, then neither party can recover damages from the other"(SC-2023-0798, Supreme Court of AL, Special Term 2024).

Furthermore, the trial court in instructing the jury about damages, said "[T]he damages in this case are punitive and not compensatory. Punitive damages are awarded to preserve human life, to punish the defendant, ... Deese, for his wrongful conduct, and to deter or discourage ... Deese and others from doing the same or similar wrongs in the future. The amount of damages must be directly related to ... Deese's culpability. And by that I mean how bad his wrongful conduct was. You do not consider the monetary value of Raymond['s] ... or Florence['s] life because the damages are not to compensate the estate of the Triggers or ... -- or Raymond['s] ... or Florence['s] family from a monetary standpoint because of their death. The amount you'll award is within your discretion based on the evidence and the guidelines in this instruction." The jury initially awarded Florence’s estate $50,000 and Raymond’s estate $0 but were told $0 could not be awarded. The jury therefore awarded Raymond’s estate $1. Brown argued that the $1 was inadequate for Raymond’s estate and the $50,000 did not punish Deese for the wrongful death, nor pay the costs of litigation or compensate for the deaths. He asked for a new trial and Deese appealed.

When the Justices of the Supreme Court considered the reasons for appeal of inconsistent awards ($1 for Raymond and $50,000 for Florence), equal protection under the 14th Amendment and inadequacy of the award, the Justices held that Brown had no right of appeal. On inadequacy, “Deese correctly argues on appeal that, unlike compensatory- damages awards, Alabama law does not permit the trial court to inquire into the adequacy of punitive damages in wrongful-death cases”. On the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection the Court said, “Brown cited no authority to support that argument in the trial court, and he totally omits any equal-protection argument from his brief on appeal. “ Finally the Court said “ . . . . the alleged inadequacy of a punitive-damages award in a wrongful-death case is not a sufficient basis upon which to grant a plaintiff's motion for a new trial.” The new trial originally ordered by the trial court in Houston County being found by the Alabama Supreme Court to have no justification was reversed and remanded back to the trial court. The trial court was ordered with instructions to enter a judgment based on the verdict of the jury.

This article is informative only and not meant to be all inclusive. Additionally this article does not serve as legal advice to the reader and does not constitute an attorney- client relationship. The reader should seek counsel from their attorney should any questions exist.

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.