Weaver v. Firestone
Decision Date | 13 December 2013 |
Docket Number | 1101403. |
Citation | 155 So.3d 952 |
Parties | Carl WEAVER v. Roger D. FIRESTONE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ralph K. Strawn, Jr., of Henslee, Robertson, Strawn & Sullivan, L.L.C., Gadsden, for appellant.
William Eugene Rutledge of Rutledge & Yaghmai, Birmingham; and John T. Natter of Natter & Fulmer, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
On Application for Rehearing
The opinion of January 11, 2013, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
This Court granted Carl Weaver permission to appeal the Coosa Circuit Court's denial of his motion to dismiss the complaint filed against him by Roger D. Firestone. See Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P. Because the trial court correctly concluded that Firestone's action might not be time-barred and thus was not due to be dismissed at this stage of the proceeding on that ground, we affirm the trial court's order denying Weaver's motion to dismiss.
In August 2010, Charles Richard Tooley, L.C. Collins, Jr., and Mickie Wayne Collins pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Firestone in May 1995. A few days after the guilty pleas, Firestone filed a complaint against Weaver; Tooley; Collins, Jr.; Collins; and fictitiously named parties A–M. According to the allegations of the complaint:
, requiring skin grafts to approximately 75% of his body, covering, but not limited to his chest, abdomen, arms, legs, back, penis and feet; one or both of his hands and one or both of his legs were permanently injured; his whole body was permanently injured; he was caused to be hospitalized at Chilton Medical Center and at University of Alabama Hospitals in Birmingham for approximately two and one-half months to treat his injuries; he incurred over $1,000,000.00 in medical bills to treat his injuries, and he will be caused to incur medical bills for treatment for the remainder of his life; he suffered immense pain as a result of said burns and has suffered pain from May 16, 1995, to the present as a result of said injuries and will suffer such pain for the remainder of his life; he is permanently disabled and cannot work; he suffered distress and discord in his marriage, which culminated in divorce and separation from his children; and he was caused to suffer extreme mental anguish as a result of said injuries and he will be caused to suffer such for the remainder of his life.
The complaint included claims that Weaver, Tooley, Collins, Jr., and Collins had conspired to “maim, torture, and kill” Firestone, had committed the tort of outrage, had committed an assault and battery on his person, and had attempted to murder him.
Also, recognizing that a question might exist as to whether his action was barred by the pertinent statutes of limitations, Firestone averred in his complaint:
”
(Emphasis added.)1
Weaver filed a motion to dismiss Firestone's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., and §§ 6–2–34 and 6–2–38, Ala.Code 1975. In his motion, Weaver argued that Firestone's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and that no tolling provision precluded the application of the time-bars. Specifically, Weaver argued that neither the discovery rule of § 6–2–3, Ala.Code 1975, nor the doctrine of equitable tolling was applicable to Firestone's claims.
After conducting a hearing on Weaver's motion to dismiss, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court specifically noted that Firestone “alleges in the complaint that he made diligent efforts to discover the identity of his assailants, but could not do so until they pleaded guilty and implicated Weaver.”2
DGB, LLC v. Hinds, 55 So.3d 218, 223 (Ala.2010). “ ‘Inasmuch as the issue before us is whether the trial court correctly denied a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss, “[t]his Court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true.” ’ ” Ex parte Walker 97 So.3d 747, 749 (Ala.2012) (quoting Ex parte Alabama Department of Youth Servs., 880 So.2d 393, 397 (Ala.2003) ).
The petition for permission to appeal included a certification by the trial court of the following controlling question of law:
“In the absence of a possible confidential or other special relationship between the parties, can either the discovery rule of Ala.Code 1975, § 6–2–3, or the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied to extend the Plaintiff's time to file its lawsuit against the Defendant, when Plaintiff alleges in its personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mormann v. Iowa Workforce Dev.
...418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005) ; Bowden v. United States , 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ; Weaver v. Firestone , 155 So.3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2013) ; Slusser v. Vantage Builders, Inc. , 306 P.3d 524, 531 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) ; In re Bonds , 165 Wash.2d 135, 196 P.3d 672,......
-
Melvin v. Troy Univ.
...to the tort of fraud, but also to torts where the existence of the cause of action has been fraudulently concealed." Weaver v. Firestone , 155 So. 3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2013).8 Melvin argues in his response that he pursued his claims with reasonable diligence by sending a letter to Troy Univers......
-
Heining v. City of Anniston
...his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' as to the filing of his action." Weaver v. Firestone, 155 So. 3d 952, 957-8 Ala. 2013) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005)). " '[T]he threshold necessary......
-
Melvin v. Troy Univ.
......Weaver. v. Firestone , 155 So.3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2013). . . [ 8 ] Melvin argues in his response that he. pursued his claims with ......