Clark v. Container Corp. of America, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1991
• Citation: 589 So.2d 184
• Parties: Billy Ray CLARK and Halliburton Industrial Services Division v. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. 1900325.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 184

589 So.2d 184

Billy Ray CLARK and Halliburton Industrial Services Division v. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.

1900325.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 27, 1991.

Richard H. Taylor and Robert J. Hedge of Jackson & Taylor, P.C., Mobile, for appellants.

Carroll H. Sullivan of Clark, Scott & Sullivan, Mobile, for appellee.

Richard W. Vollmer III of Reams, Vollmer, Phillips, Killion, Brooks & Schell, P.C., Mobile, for intervenor.

Forrest S. Latta of Pierce, Carr & Alford, Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama Defense Lawyers Ass'n.

Matthew C. McDonald of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama Civ. Justice Reform Committee.

HOUSTON, Justice.

The following question was certified to this Court by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama:

"Is Alabama Code 1975, § 6-11-3, either on its face or as applied to the above-styled case, violative of Alabama Constitution of 1901, Article I, § 11; Article I, § 13; Article I, § 6; or Article III, § 42?"

We assume that the phrasing of the question was intended as a guide and that it was not meant to restrict our consideration only to the constitutionality of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-3, but was intended to extend to all portions of Article I ("Structured Damages") of Chapter 11, of Title 6 (§§ 6-11-1 through 6-11-7).

Billy Ray Clark's claim arose out of an "injury done him in his ... person," while operating high pressure cleaning equipment for his employer, Halliburton Industrial Services Division ("Halliburton"). Halliburton had been engaged by Container Corporation of America, Inc. ("Container"), to perform industrial cleaning services at a Container facility. Clark was performing these services at the time he sustained his injury. The jury returned a verdict against Container in the amount of $822,600 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division. Of the total sum awarded, it is only the amount awarded for lost future wages ($289,800) that is in any way involved in this certified question, ¹ because Container filed a post-trial motion requesting the court to structure the award of future damages in accordance with Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-11-1 through 6-11-7, particularly § 6-11-3. The parties have stipulated as to the applicability of these statutes to this case. Clark, however, objected to the application of § 6-11-3 as violating four constitutional provisions--Article I, §§ 6, 11, and 13, and Article III, § 42.

Alabama Code 1975, § 6-11-3, provides:

"Where the damages assessed against a defendant by the trier of fact include an award of future damages, the trial court shall comply with the following in rendering its judgment in the case:

"(1) Judgment shall be entered against the defendant for all past damages and punitive damages assessed against the defendant by the trier of fact.

"(2) If the award of future damages assessed by the trier of fact is $150,000.00 or less, the trial court shall enter judgment against the defendants for the amount of such future damages.

"(3) If the award of future damages assessed by the trier of fact is greater than $150,000.00, the trial court shall enter judgment as follows:

"a. Judgment shall be entered against the defendant for $150,000.00 of such future damage.

"b. If, as part of the plaintiff's contract with his attorney, the plaintiff is obligated to pay his attorney a fee based on that portion of the award of future damages which exceeds $150,000.00, the court shall determine what portion of the award of future damages in excess of $150,000.00 is owed to the attorney under the contract and shall enter judgment for the remainder of the award of future damages in excess of $150,000.00 as provided in c, below. As to that portion of the award of future damages in excess of $150,000.00 which is owed to the plaintiff's attorney, that portion shall be reduced to present value by the court and judgment shall be entered against the defendant for the reduced amount.

"c. 1. For that portion of a future damage award in excess of $150,000.00 and in excess of the attorney's fee subject to b, above, judgment shall be entered requiring the defendant to pay that portion of such future damages by periodic payments over a period of years not to exceed such period of years as, according to the evidence offered during the trial of the case, such future damages may be incurred. In entering a judgment against the defendants ordering the payment of future damages by periodic payment, the trial court shall make a specific finding as to the dollar amount of periodic payments which will compensate the judgment creditor for such future damages as the same may be incurred, as determined from the evidence offered during the trial of the case. If, or to the extent that, the evidence offered at trial did not indicate the approximate time or time frame or both within which the future damages would be incurred, the trial court, for the purpose of determining the amount of periodic payments and the interval between such payments, shall conclusively presume that such damages will be incurred throughout the life expectancy of the judgment creditor on an equal periodic basis. The judgment ordering payment of future damages by periodic payments shall specify the recipient or recipients of the payments, the dollar amounts of the payments, the interval between payments, and the number of payments or period of time over which payments shall be made. The total amount of all periodic payments when added to the sum of $150,000.00 and when added to that portion of the future damages award, not reduced to present value, which was used to calculate the attorney's fee in paragraph b, above, shall not exceed the total amount of future damages contained in the verdict of the trier of fact.

"2. As a condition to authorizing periodic payments for future damages, the court must receive adequate assurance that the defendant can and will make all required payments. Such assurance may include the requirement that the defendant either have sufficient financial ability to make all required payments, post adequate bond or other security, give evidence that there exists an insurance company, registered in this state, which is obligated to pay the judgment, or purchase an annuity of sufficient value to pay the future damages as structured, or any accelerated payments of those damages which might be required by this article. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the authority of the trial court to order a new trial, enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or order a remittitur of damages. The provisions of this section shall also apply to any judgment following remittitur.

"3. An award of future damages shall not be reduced to present value by the court, except as required in b, above, and no interest is to be charged on said damages. Evidence of the present value of future damages is inadmissible in cases covered by this article, except at a hearing authorized by section 6-11-5, herein. If, however, the court determines that damages which should be structured pursuant to c, above, cannot be structured due to the failure of the defendant to provide the financial assurances required in c 2, above, that portion of the future damage award shall be reduced to present value by the court prior to entry of judgment."

Article I, § 11, of the Constitution provides:

"That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

"....

"That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate."

This is not the only place within the declaration of rights (Art. I, §§ 1-36) that the word "inviolate" is used. In § 36, the following appears:

"That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate."

(Emphasis added.)

"Inviolate" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 826 (6th ed. 1990) as "Intact; not violated; free from substantial impairment."

Insofar as legislative power is concerned, § 11 of the Constitution has never been interpreted by this Court or the Courts of Appeals of Alabama as doing more than restricting the legislature from denying or impairing the fundamental requisites of a jury, which are that the jury be composed of 12 persons, that they be impartial, and that their verdict be unanimous (Kirk v. State, 247 Ala. 43, 22 So.2d 431 (1945); Baader v. State, 201 Ala. 76, 77 So. 370 (1917); Culbert v. State, 52 Ala.App. 167, 290 So.2d 235 (1974); Brown v. State, 45 Ala.App. 391, 231 So.2d 167 (1970); Dixon v. State, 27 Ala.App. 64, 167 So. 340 (1936), cert. denied, 232 Ala. 150, 167 So. 349 (1936); Judge Walter B. Jones, Trial by Jury in Alabama, 8 Ala.L.Rev. 274, 277 (1956); 16 Ruling Case Law 181 (1917)), in all cases in which the right of trial by jury existed at common law and in all cases where the right of trial by jury was secured by statute at the time the Alabama Constitution of 1901 was ratified. ² Gilbreath v. Wallace, 292 Ala. 267, 292 So.2d 651 (1974); Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 170 Ala. 178, 54 So. 213 (1910); Tims v. State, 26 Ala. 165 (1855).

In Baader v. State, 201 Ala. at 77-78, 77 So. at 371-72, Justice Thomas wrote for this unanimous Court:

"That the right of trial by jury may be regulated by the Legislature has been often reaffirmed; but legislative restrictions or amplifications must not be of such character as to deny or impair any of the fundamental requisites of a jury; that is, they may not vary the constituent number, nor provide for other than an unanimous verdict, nor introduce regulations leading away from impartiality. These original factors are necessary for the integrity of the...