Cheshire v. Putman

• Decision Date: 23 July 2010
• Docket Number: 1071678 and 1071679.
• Parties: Gene William CHESHIREv.Pearl PUTMAN; Alexander Akins, a minor, by and through his legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins; and Morgan Akins, a minor, by and through her legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins.Allstate Electric Company, Inc.v.Pearl Putman; Alexander Akins, a minor, by and through his legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins; and Morgan Akins, a minor, by and through her legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

54 So.3d 336

Gene William CHESHIRE

v.Pearl PUTMAN; Alexander Akins, a minor, by and through his legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins; and Morgan Akins, a minor, by and through her legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins.Allstate Electric Company, Inc.

v.Pearl Putman; Alexander Akins, a minor, by and through his legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins; and Morgan Akins, a minor, by and through her legal guardian and parent, Steve Lewis Akins.

1071678 and 1071679.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 23, 2010.

Paul A. Miller of Lamar, Miller, Norris, Haggard & Christie, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant Gene William Cheshire.R. Larry Bradford and Shane T. Sears of Bradford & Sears, P.C., Birmingham; and William H. Brooks and Ivan B. Cooper of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellant Allstate Electric Company.Garve Ivey, Jr., Jasper; and John E. Warren III, Jasper, for appellees.PER CURIAM.

In two separate appeals, Gene William Cheshire and Allstate Electric Company, Inc. (“Allstate Electric”), the defendants below, appeal the trial court's judgment, entered following jury verdicts in the plaintiffs' favor, and its subsequent denial of their renewed motions for a judgment as a matter of law (“JML”). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

Cheshire is an employee of Allstate Electric, an electrical contractor headquartered in Birmingham. On August 25, 2006, Cheshire, who lives in Hanceville, was in Jasper, working as a supervisor at an Allstate Electric job site. Cheshire, who is paid hourly, ended his workday at 3:30 p.m. Cheshire left the job site in his personal truck, which he uses in the course of his employment with Allstate Electric; Allstate Electric furnishes the gasoline for Cheshire's truck. Cheshire was hauling a trailer behind his truck that did not belong to Allstate Electric. On his way home, Cheshire drove to a Home Depot building-supply store to buy drywall for his personal use. After leaving the Home Depot store, Cheshire stopped at a convenience store to purchase a soft drink. Leaving the convenience store, Cheshire began driving north on Highway 69 to Hanceville. Having worked for approximately eight weeks at the Jasper job site, Cheshire had driven Highway 69 numerous times. Cheshire testified that he was familiar with Highway 69 and knew that “on both sides of the road there are driveways and roads and places to turn all along the way.” Shortly after 4:00 p.m., Cheshire drove his vehicle into the back end of a vehicle being driven by Pearl Putman, who had stopped to make a left-hand turn off Highway 69. The force of the collision propelled Putman's vehicle forward, causing it to collide with a utility pole. Cheshire testified that “he didn't realize the vehicle was stopped until the last minute.” Putman was stopped just over the crest of a hill.

Riding as passengers in Putman's vehicle were two of her minor grandchildren, Alexander Akins and Morgan Akins (Putman, Alexander Akins, and Morgan Akins are hereinafter referred to collectively as “the plaintiffs”). All three of the plaintiffs were injured in the accident. Morgan Akins, who was not wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident, was the most severely injured; she suffered a traumatic brain injury. Putman suffered a fractured rib. Alexander Akins briefly lost consciousness and suffered cuts and bruises.

Cheshire stated that, before the impact, he was traveling between 55 and 60 miles per hour. Cheshire testified that he was not “paying that much attention” to whether Putman's vehicle was in front of his truck on Highway 69 until he saw her vehicle stopped in the road about 50 yards ahead of him; Cheshire testified that he was “focusing on driving [his] car,” and not on which specific car was in front of him. Cheshire also testified that he knew that Highway 69 is a two-lane road with numerous intersecting driveways and crossroads. Cheshire stated that he was aware that a driver making a left turn off Highway 69 onto one of the numerous intersecting driveways or crossroads might have to come to a complete stop and wait for traffic to clear before proceeding. Cheshire stated that he misjudged the time he would need in order to stop his truck and trailer to avoid hitting Putman's vehicle. Cheshire also testified that he was aware that it would take more time to stop his truck than it normally would because he was hauling a trailer. Cheshire stated that he was aware that he “would have to alter [his] driving habits to be more safe if [he was] pulling a trailer than if [he did not] have a trailer.” The Alabama state trooper who responded to the scene of the accident testified that he told Cheshire at the scene of the accident that, in his opinion, Cheshire was driving too fast considering the weight of the trailer he was hauling.

There was no evidence indicating that Cheshire was intoxicated, impaired, or driving erratically at the time of the accident. Charlotte Bates testified that she was driving behind Cheshire's truck before the accident and that she saw nothing unsafe or unusual about his driving. Similarly, Audra Borden was also driving behind Cheshire's truck at the time of the accident and testified that Cheshire showed no erratic behavior while driving and that he was not driving at an excessive speed.

The plaintiffs presented evidence indicating that there was sufficient room on the shoulder of Highway 69 for Cheshire to have maneuvered his truck off Highway 69 onto the shoulder, thereby avoiding the collision with Putman's vehicle. Cheshire agreed that swerving off Highway 69 onto the shoulder would have been a prudent maneuver, but he stated that everything happened so quickly he did not have time to respond in that manner.

On August 29, 2006, the plaintiffs sued Cheshire and Allstate Electric. The plaintiffs alleged against Cheshire negligence and wantonness. The plaintiffs alleged against Allstate Electric negligent and wanton hiring, training, and supervision. The plaintiffs also sought to hold Allstate Electric vicariously liable for Cheshire's allegedly negligent and/or wanton conduct.

The case went to trial in April 2008. At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, Cheshire and Allstate Electric each filed a motion for a JML on all the claims against them, which motions were denied. At the close of all the evidence, Cheshire and Allstate Electric each expressly renewed their motions for a JML. The trial court denied Cheshire's motion for a JML. The trial court granted Allstate Electric's motion for a JML as to the plaintiffs' claim for wanton hiring, training, and supervision, but denied the motion as to the remaining claims against Allstate Electric.

The jury returned general verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs and against Cheshire and Allstate Electric on all claims. The jury awarded the plaintiffs damages, as follows: Putman was awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $25,000; Alexander Akins was awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $30,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $25,000; and Morgan Akins was awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $6,000,000. On May 28, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial alleging, in pertinent part, that the compensatory-damages award to Morgan was inadequate.

Allstate Electric renewed its motion for a JML on the vicarious-liability claims against it arguing that the evidence that the accident occurred while Cheshire was acting in the scope of his employment with Allstate Electric was insufficient. Allstate Electric sought a JML on all claims seeking punitive damages because, Allstate Electric argued, punitive damages could not be awarded against Allstate Electric under § 6–11–27, Ala.Code 1975.¹ Cheshire and Allstate Electric sought a JML on all claims seeking punitive damages because, they argued, the plaintiffs failed to present clear and convincing evidence of Cheshire's wantonness. Alternatively, Cheshire and Allstate Electric sought a reduction in the punitive-damages award to Morgan Akins so that the award would comply with § 6–11–21, Ala.Code 1975,² and with constitutional due-process limits. Cheshire and Allstate Electric did not move for a new trial.

The plaintiffs conceded that Morgan Akins's punitive-damages award was excessive. The plaintiffs submitted a proposed order denying Cheshire's and Allstate Electric's renewed motions for a JML, reducing each of the plaintiffs' punitive-damages awards, and permitting the plaintiffs either to accept the reduction of the punitive-damages awards or to elect a new trial. The trial court entered the plaintiffs' proposed order as its judgment. The plaintiffs then elected a new trial. Cheshire and Allstate Electric separately appealed. The appeals have been consolidated for purposes of writing one opinion.

Standard of Review

In American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Hughes, 624 So.2d 1362 (Ala.1993), this Court set out the standard that applies to the appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for a JML:

“The standard of review applicable to a ruling on a motion for JNOV [now referred to as a renewed motion for a JML] is identical to the standard used by the trial court in granting or denying a motion for directed verdict [now referred to as a motion for a JML]. Thus, in reviewing the trial court's ruling on the motion, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, and we determine whether the party with the burden of proof has produced sufficient evidence to require a jury determination.”

624 So.2d at 1366 (citations omitted). Further, in Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Trzcinski, 682 So.2d 17 (Ala.1996), this Court held:

“The motion for a J.N.O.V. [now referred to as a renewed motion for a JML] is a procedural device used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's...