Campbell v. Williams
Decision Date | 18 February 1994 |
Citation | 638 So.2d 804 |
Parties | John H. CAMPBELL, M.D. v. Sharlisia Suttle WILLIAMS. 1920826. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Michael A. Florie, Walter W. Bates, Joseph S. Miller and Scott M. Salter of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for appellant.
Andrew T. Citrin, Michael A. Worel, John T. Crowder, Jr. and David G. Wirtes, Jr. of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder and Brown, Mobile, for appellee.
The defendant doctor appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff entered on a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case seeking damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiff's intestate. The trial court made the following factual findings in its order denying post-judgment relief:
Indeed, while the jury was deliberating, and just moments before it returned its verdict, Ms. Williams and Holy Name of Jesus Hospital ("Hospital") entered into a pro tanto settlement under which the hospital agreed to pay $1 million in settlement of the claim against it. Giving credit for the $1 million that the hospital had agreed to pay, the trial court entered a $3 million judgment against Dr. Campbell, based on the jury verdict. After the trial court denied his post-judgment motions, Dr. Campbell brought this appeal. We affirm.
Nine issues are raised on appeal: (1) Whether the Alabama Wrongful Death Statute, § 6-5-410, Code of Ala.1975, is unconstitutional as applied in cases involving multiple defendants. (2) Whether the failure to inform the jury of the pro tanto settlement between the Hospital and the plaintiff so taints the verdict that it must be set aside. (3) Whether the failure of a juror to answer or to respond truthfully to voir dire questions so prejudiced Dr. Campbell as to require a new trial. (4) Whether the testimony of Dr. Alan Dimick should have been precluded at trial. (5) Whether newly discovered evidence that Dr. Dimick had testified falsely entitled Dr. Campbell to a new trial. (6) Whether the mention of insurance by the plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments mandates a new trial. (7) Whether the trial court properly charged the jury on spoliation of the evidence. (8) Whether the trial court properly charged the jury on the definition of "substantial evidence." (9) Whether the jury's verdict is excessive, so as to require remittitur.
Dr. Campbell challenges the Wrongful Death Act, § 6-5-410, on constitutional grounds, alleging that the Act, as applied in this case, violates his right to a trial by jury, his right to due process of law, and his right to equal protection of the laws under the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution.
Alabama has had a wrongful death act since 1852, when the legislature passed an act "to prevent homicides," §§ 1940, 1941, Code of Alabama 1852; Central of Georgia Ry. v. Ellison, 199 Ala. 571, 579-80, 75 So. 159, 163 (1916); Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042 at 1057 (Ala.1988). An amendment, approved February 21, 1860, was by a later case held to have been expressly made applicable to homicides caused by the "wrongful act, omission or culpable negligence of any officer or agent of any chartered company" (this was the language of § 1941, Code of 1852) as well as to deaths caused by natural persons. The amendment provided in § 2:
"[W]hen the death of a person is unlawfully caused by another, the personal representative of the deceased may maintain an action against the latter at any time within two years thereafter, and may recover such sum as the jury deem just, and the amount so recovered, shall be distributed as personal property of an intestate is now distributed, and shall not be subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased."
That amendment provided in § 3:
"That the right of action hereby given shall survive against the personal representative of the person unlawfully causing the death as aforesaid."
Ala.Acts 1859-60, Act No. 46, p. 42; the case interpreting that amendatory act was Savannah & Memphis R.R. v. Shearer, 58 Ala. 672, 678 (1877) ( ). In 1872, the Alabama legislature re-enacted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...1955, 104 L.Ed.2d 424 (1989) (quoting Smithson v. State, 50 Ala.App. 318, 320-21, 278 So.2d 766 (1973)). See also Campbell v. Williams, 638 So.2d 804, 813 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 868, 115 S.Ct. 188, 130 L.Ed.2d 121 (1994). `Thus, the facts in each case must be considered individu......
-
Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd.
...a part of [the statute] by legislative adoption." Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219, 221, 115 So. 308, 310 (1928); see also Campbell v. Williams, 638 So.2d 804 (Ala.1994); Edgehill Corp. v. Hutchens, 282 Ala. 492, 213 So.2d 225 (1968); Sloss Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Nations, 243 Ala. 107,......
-
Gillis v. Frazier
...to give an understandable "nod" to the principle that we cannot place a compensatory dollar value on this loss. See Campbell v. Williams, 638 So.2d 804, 810–11 (Ala.1994) ; McKowan, 773 So.2d at 992, 998. Thus it is that, in Tillis Trucking Co. v. Moses, 748 So.2d 874, 889 (Ala.1999), this ......
-
Terry v. Mcneil-Ppc, Inc. (In re Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Mktg.)
...and it must disregard his or her talents and education, or lack of them, as well as his or her station in life." Campbell v. Williams, 638 So.2d 804, 811 (Ala. 1994). The statute and its punitive scheme date back to the late 1800s.8 See Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Yeldell, 274 U.S. ......
-
Exploring Wantonness
...Alabama are punitive only, recoverable when the plaintiff proves a claim to the jury's reasonable satisfaction. See Campbell v. Williams, 638 So. 2d 804, 808-12 (Ala. 1994); Plant v. R.L. Reid, Inc., 365 So. 2d 305, 307 (Ala. 1978).3. See note 2.4. In order to preserve for appeal an argumen......
-
Alabama Medical Records Part 1
...alteration or destruction of medical records, as reflected in May v. Moore, 424 So. 2d 596 (Ala. 1982), and Campbell v. Williams, 638 So. 2d 804 (Ala. 1994).40 C. Federal Medicare/Medicaid Regulations The United States conditions the payment of Medicare and Medicaid funds to various healthc......