Brooks v. Inlow, 82-1119
Decision Date | 25 May 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1119,82-1119 |
Citation | 453 So.2d 349 |
Parties | Jerry W. BROOKS and Melody Brooks v. Ronald INLOW, Frank Chapman, et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Stephen J. Flynn and James F. Barter, Jr. of Diamond & Flynn, Mobile, for appellants.
William C. Roedder, Jr. of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Graves & Johnston, Mobile, for appellees.
This case involves the issue of whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment for seven nonresident defendants because it lacked in personam jurisdiction over them. The Court granted each defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him. We affirm as to those nonresidents who never were physically present in Alabama; we reverse as to those defendants who did come into Alabama.
Plaintiff Jerry Brooks was employed as a diesel truck mechanic at a Mobile terminal operated by Enterprise Transportation Company (hereinafter Enterprise). In May of 1981, Brooks ruptured a cervical disc while manually lifting transfer truck tires. Brooks and his wife brought suit in the Mobile County Circuit Court on theories of co-employee negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and products liability. Numerous individuals were named in the complaint as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgments as to seven of these defendants and entered an appropriate order under Ala.R.Civ.P. 54(b), making his judgments as to these defendants final. The plaintiffs appealed these judgments.
The affidavits of the plaintiffs and the defendants submitted in connection with the motions to dismiss show that all seven defendants are supervisory level employees of Enterprise or its parent company, Enterprise Companies, Inc., both of which have their corporate offices in Texas, and that each defendant is a resident of Texas. None of them had property in Alabama and their only contacts with Alabama were in connection with their employment. Each defendant's admitted contacts with Alabama and his employee classification was as follows:
(1) DAN DUNCAN:
Chairman of the Board of Enterprise Companies, Inc., Duncan had never been in Alabama, and had never had any personal contacts with the personnel at the Mobile terminal.
(2) FRANK CHAPMAN:
Corporate Risk-Director of Claims for Enterprise Companies Inc., Chapman had never been personally to Alabama but had talked with Renfro, the Mobile terminal manager, on at least five occasions regarding claims made at the facility.
(3) VIM MATTINGLY:
Director of Maintenance for Enterprise, Mattingly had been to the Mobile facility on at least one occasion to check the maintenance program and had had at least two telephone conversations from Texas with Brooks, one of which occurred before the injury.
(4) RONALD LEE INLOW:
Safety Supervisor for Enterprise, Inlow had visited the Mobile terminal on at least four occasions between July of 1979 and May of 1982, and at least one of these meetings was termed a "safety meeting." Inlow had had telephone contact with the Mobile terminal on at least three occasions.
(5) DOUGLAS TIPTON:
President of Enterprise Tipton had been to the Mobile Terminal "no more than five times." On at least one of these visits, he attended what was termed a "safety meeting." He also made monthly telephone contact with the Mobile terminal from Texas.
(6) GERALD MARTINDALE:
"Field Safety Man" for Enterprise, Martindale had visited the Mobile terminal on at least six occasions and had made at least six telephone calls per month to the Mobile terminal from Texas.
(7) ROBERT A. GAINES II:
Also a "Field Safety Man" for Enterprise, Gaines had made at least ten trips to the Mobile terminal and at least two telephone calls a month from Texas.
The affidavits of Brooks dispute to some extent those of the defendants:
(1) DAN DUNCAN:
Brooks claimed Duncan owned the company.
(2) FRANK CHAPMAN:
Brooks did not dispute Chapman's affidavit.
(3) VIM MATTINGLY:
Brooks claimed that he had complained of the safety problem to Mattingly in Texas during a training session and that he had discussed the operation at the Mobile facility with Mattingly on at least one occasion.
(4) RONALD LEE INLOW:
Brooks stated that he had seen Ronald Inlow in Mobile in 1981, and further stated:
Brooks also stated:
(5) DOUGLAS TIPTON:
Brooks' affidavit stated that Tipton was in charge of maintenance for the Enterprise Transportation Company. Brooks stated:
(6) GERALD MARTINDALE:
Brooks stated that he met with Gerald Martindale frequently about unsafe working conditions. He stated:
(7) ROBERT A. GAINES II:
Brooks stated he had met with Robert Gaines frequently about unsafe working conditions. He stated:
For convenience and analysis, we will discuss the defendants in two separate groups. Duncan and Chapman, who were never in Alabama, constitute the first group, and the remaining five constitute the second group.
These defendants argue they are protected by what they refer to as the "Fiduciary Shield Doctrine," which they claim was recognized by this Court in Thames v. Gunter-Dunn, Inc., 373 So.2d 640 (Ala.1979). In Thames, supra, this Court held that bank officers of an out-of-state bank, who had never been in Alabama and over whom the plaintiff sought in personam jurisdiction in a suit for breach of a lease, an accounting, and foreclosure of a landlord's lien, or alternatively damages for breach of a lease, were not subject to the jurisdiction of Alabama courts. The Court held:
Thames, supra, at 642-643. See also, Mann v. Frank Hrubetz & Co., 361 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Ala.1978).
Earlier in the Thames opinion, this Court quoted approvingly language from another court's opinion:
The Brookses argue that the doctrine recognized in Thames is not applicable to the "Texas Two" because even though never physically present in Alabama, they owed a personal duty to Jerry Brooks which they had either assumed or were delegated responsibility for, and that they breached that duty under the principle set out in Fireman's Fund American Insurance Co. v. Coleman, 394 So.2d 334 (Ala.1980), and, therefore, that jurisdiction over them could be acquired under Ala.R.Civ.P. 4.2...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
...Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed.2d 490 (1980); Duke [v. Young, 496 So. 2d 37 (Ala. 1986)]; Brooks v. Inlow, 453 So. 2d 349 (Ala. 1984); and Alabama Waterproofing Co. v. Hanby, 431 So. 2d 141,144-146 (Ala. 1983). 'A physical presence in Alabama is not a prerequis......
-
Facebook, Inc. v. K.G.S.
...comports with ‘ "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." ’ " Elliott, 830 So. 2d at 731 (quoting Brooks v. Inlow, 453 So. 2d 349, 351 (Ala. 1984), quoting in turn International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 ).14 Notably, in its order denying Facebook's motion to dis......
-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.)
...Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Duke [v. Young, 496 So.2d 37 (Ala.1986) ]; Brooks v. Inlow, 453 So.2d 349 (Ala.1984); and Alabama Waterproofing Co. v. Hanby, 431 So.2d 141, 144–146 (Ala.1983). ‘ A physical presence in Alabama is not a prerequisite ......
-
P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage (In re Alamo Title Co.), 1111541.
...jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant comports with ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ Brooks v. Inlow, 453 So.2d 349, 351 (Ala.1984), quoting International Shoe [ Co. v. Washington ], 326 U.S. [310] at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 [ (1945) ]. See also Burger King, 4......