Colbert County-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Authority v. Nix
| Decision Date | 27 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | COUNTY-NORTHWEST |
| Citation | 678 So.2d 719 |
| Parties | The COLBERTALABAMA HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY, d/b/a Helen Keller Memorial Hospital, et al. v. Melvin Randall NIX and Stephanie Paulette Nix, as parents and next friends of Matthew Randall Nix, a minor. 1931322. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Braxton W. Ashe and Michelle A. Meurer of Ashe, Tanner, Moore & Wright, P.C., Tuscumbia, and Oakley Melton, Jr. of Melton, Espy, Williams & Hayes, P.C., Montgomery, for Colbert County-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Authority, d/b/a Helen Keller Memorial Hospital, and Phyllis Melton, R.N.
Ralph M. Young and Melissa A. Moreau, Florence, for Jeannie Williams and Judy Britton.
Curtis Simpson, Florence, for Dr. Joel Powell.
M. Clay Alspaugh of Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, Birmingham, S. Shay Samples and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for Appellees.
Melvin Randall Nix and Stephanie Paulette Nix sued Helen Keller Memorial Hospital ("Helen Keller Hospital"); Dr. Joel Powell Phyllis Melton, R.N.; Judy Britton, R.N.; Jeannie Williams, R.N.; Dr. Bill Vermillion; Dr. Wayne Melvin; Florence Clinic, Inc.; and Florence Emergency Physicians, P.C., alleging medical malpractice. The Nixes alleged medical malpractice regarding the birth of their son Matthew; their damages claims related to the alleged malpractice and to his later treatment for a seizure disorder that the Nixes contended was caused by that alleged malpractice. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. The Nixes moved for a new trial, alleging that they had been prejudiced by the failure of certain jurors to answer questions during voir dire examination. The trial court granted the Nixes a new trial against Dr. Powell, Helen Keller Hospital, Nurse Williams, Nurse Melton, and Nurse Britton, all of whom were involved in the alleged malpractice that occurred at Matthew Nix's birth, but denied the motion as to Dr. Vermillion, Dr. Melvin, Florence Emergency Physicians, P.C., and Florence Clinic, Inc. Dr. Powell, Helen Keller Hospital, Nurse Williams, Nurse Melton, and Nurse Britton appeal. 1
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Nixes had been prejudiced by the failure of jurors Joan Curtis and Mary Smith to respond to certain questions during voir dire.
During voir dire examination of the prospective jurors, an attorney for the Nixes asked the following question:
"Let me read you some of the lawyers in [the law firm of Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus, and Tanner] and see if these people ring a bell with you: Vincent McAlister, if any of you know or have you been represented by him please let me know or any member of your immediate family, to your knowledge, been represented by these lawyers: Vincent McAlister, Steve Baccus...."
Later in voir dire, the following questions were asked:
Juror Joan Curtis did not respond to either question. However, after trial, it was discovered that in 1993 her brother, John Wayne Thompson, had been represented by Steve Baccus, a member of the law firm that represented one of the defendants in this case. In the hearing on the Nixes' motion for new trial, Curtis stated that she speaks with her brother approximately every three months and that they regularly see each other during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. She testified that she had not known that he had been represented by Steven Baccus and that she had little knowledge about an accident that had led to Baccus's representation of Thompson. Curtis's pertinent testimony at the hearing on the Nixes' motion for new trial was as follows:
An attorney for the Nixes also asked the following question during voir dire:
Juror Mary Smith did not respond to this question. However, it was discovered after trial that Smith's sister, Barbara Johnson, had been employed by Helen Keller Hospital as an emergency medical technician on an ambulance team from May 1989 until December 1990, and that Johnson and her husband had since worked for a volunteer ambulance service. Smith testified at the hearing on the motion for new trial that, until after the trial, she had forgotten that Johnson had worked for Helen Keller Hospital. However, Smith admitted that while serving as a juror during the trial she had known that Johnson had worked for the county volunteer ambulance service. Smith's pertinent testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial was as follows:
Whether to grant or deny a motion for new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not reverse a ruling in that regard unless it finds that the trial court's ruling constituted an abuse of that discretion. Without a showing of such an abuse, the trial court's ruling must be affirmed. Blackmon v. King Metals Co., 553 So.2d 105 (Ala.1989); Menefee v. Veal, 484 So.2d 437 (Ala.1986); Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Blalock, 525 So.2d 1366 (Ala.1988).
In considering a motion for a new trial based on allegations of improper responses or a lack of responses by veniremembers during voir dire examination, the trial court must inquire as to whether the movant was probably prejudiced. If probable prejudice resulted from the veniremember's actions during voir dire, the motion for new trial must be granted. Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So.2d 330 (1970). In Freeman, the Court noted some of the factors that may be considered pertinent to the trial court's determination of prejudice. Among those factors are "temporal remoteness of the matter inquired about, the ambiguity of the question propounded, the prospective juror's inadvertence or willfulness in falsifying or failing to answer, the failure of the juror to recollect, and the materiality of the matter inquired about." Freeman, 286 Ala. at 167, 238 So.2d at 335. The question of prejudice is a determination to be made within the trial court's discretion. Williston v. Ard, 611 So.2d 274 (Ala.1992); Eaton v. Horton, 565 So.2d 183 (Ala.1990).
The Freeman Court stated the following in regard to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillis v. Frazier
...to review by appellate transcript....’ "Hood v. McElroy, 127 So.3d 325, 340 (Ala.2011) (quoting Colbert Cnty.-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Auth. v. Nix, 678 So.2d 719, 723 (Ala.1995) ).There are two aspects of this case that make this general rule inapplicable here. First, as noted above, t......
-
Tlig Maint. Servs., Inc. v. Fialkowski
...regard unless it finds that the trial court's ruling constituted an abuse of that discretion.’ Colbert County–Northwest Alabama Healthcare Authority v. Nix, 678 So.2d 719, 722 (Ala.1995). ‘Without a showing of such an abuse, the trial court's ruling must be affirmed.’ Id. "Liberty Nat'l Lif......
-
Se Environmental Infrastructures v. Rivers
...regard unless it finds that the trial court's ruling constituted an abuse of that discretion.' Colbert County-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Authority v. Nix, 678 So.2d 719, 722 (Ala.1995). `Without a showing of such an abuse, the trial court's ruling must be affirmed.' Liberty Nat'l Life Ins......
-
Hood v. McElroy
...that this Court should consider is the ‘ambiguity of the question propounded’ during voir dire. In Colbert County–Northwest Alabama Healthcare Authority v. Nix, 678 So.2d 719, 720 (Ala.1995), the prospective jurors were asked the following: ‘Have any of you ever been a defendant in a lawsui......