Container Corp. of America v. Crosby
| Citation | 535 So.2d 154 |
| Parties | CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA and Robert Dewitt Andrews v. Willie James CROSBY. 87-977. |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1988 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Carroll H. Sullivan of Clark, Scott & Sullivan, Mobile, for appellants.
Paul M. Harden, Evergreen and Windell C. Owens, Monroeville, for appellee.
Container Corporation of America and Robert Dewitt Andrews appeal from the trial court's denial of their post-trial motion in this case, in which a $400,000 judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, Willie James Crosby, for injuries received in an elevator accident. We affirm.
Crosby was injured in an elevator accident that occurred on the premises of a paper mill owned by Container Corporation. At the time of the accident, Crosby was employed by Barnett Construction Company to do general clean-up work around a boiler at the paper mill. Crosby would haul debris away from the work area in a wheelbarrow. He would use an elevator to go between the work area and the ground. At the time of the accident, Crosby was on his way up to the work area. The elevator rose to a point between the 4th and 6th floors and then fell, without warning, and landed on the large spring at the bottom of the elevator shaft. Crosby was injured in the fall and brought this suit against Container Corporation and Andrews, the superintendent of mechanical maintenance at the paper mill, claiming negligence and wantonness.
The following issues are raised on appeal:
I. Whether the trial court erred in submitting the claim of wanton conduct to the jury.
II. Whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony of the plaintiff's reputation for truth and veracity.
III. Whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning the truth and varacity of the plaintiff's wife.
IV. Whether the trial court erred in denying a remittitur.
V. Whether the jury verdict should be set aside as against the great weight of the evidence.
Container Corporation and Andrews moved for directed verdict on the wantonness claim at the close of Crosby's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence and filed a post-trial motion attacking the sufficiency of the evidence of wantonness. They argue that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of wantonness to the jury. We disagree. In Rosen v. Lawson, 281 Ala. 351, 355-56, 202 So.2d 716, 719-20 (1967), this Court held:
The cause of the accident was a mechanical failure (a bolt sheared inside the drum gear and caused the elevator to fall). Even so, the elevator should not have fallen, because it was equipped with a safety device designed to prevent a free fall. The safety device did not operate because it had rusted and corroded to the point that it would no longer move. According to the elevator mechanic who made the inspection after the fall, the rust and corrosion were obvious and a visual inspection would have revealed the problem.
Andrews testified that a visual inspection of the elevator was conducted annually. Andrews also testified that there had been a mechanical malfunction involving the safety device on the elevator the year prior to this fall. The elevator was in a place where there was an above average likelihood of corrosion. The elevator repeatedly malfunctioned, and had done so on the day prior to the fall. The defendants admitted liability in the case, and the trial judge so instructed the jury. The only issue for the jury's determination was whether the defendants' conduct constituted wantonness.
This Court has defined "wantonness":
"[T]he conscious doing of some act or the omission of some duty while knowing of the existing conditions and being conscious that, from doing or omitting to do an act, injury will likely or probably result."
McDougle v. Shaddrix, 534 So.2d 228 (Ala.1988).
This Court has held that an elevator, whether passenger or freight, is a common carrier and, as such, is to be operated and maintained with the highest degree of care. Ensley Holding Co. v. Kelley, 229 Ala. 650, 158 So. 896 (1934); Johnson v. Hopkins, 213 Ala. 492, 105 So. 663 (1925); O'Rourke v. Woodward, 201 Ala. 265, 77 So. 679 (1918); Morgan v. Saks, 143 Ala. 139, 38 So. 848 (1905).
There was a scintilla of evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Container Corporation and Andrews omitted their duty to maintain this elevator with the highest degree of care, knowing that their failure to do so would likely or probably result in a malfunction from which injury would result. We are of the opinion that the trial court properly submitted the issue of wantonness to the jury.
At trial, over objection of Container Corporation and Andrews, the court permitted a witness called by Crosby to give testimony that bolstered Crosby's reputation for truth and veracity. The following exchange took place during the questioning of the plaintiff's witness:
Defendants contend that this evidence was improperly admitted, because, they say, there had been no effort to impeach Crosby. On cross-examination of Crosby, defense counsel proved that Crosby had testified differently in his deposition from the way he testified at trial concerning the height to which the elevator had risen before it fell. It is well established in Alabama that after a witness has been impeached by proof of contradictory statements, the party offering the witness may offer proof of the witness's good reputation as a whole or with respect to his truth and veracity. Dickson v. Dinsmore, 219 Ala. 353, 122 So. 437, 438 (1929); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 176.01(7) (3d ed. 1977). The trial court did not err in allowing this evidence to be presented to the jury.
The defendants also contend that the trial court erred in admitting testimony that bolstered Ms. Helen Stalworth's reputation for truth and veracity; Ms. Stalworth was Crosby's wife. At trial, Ms. Stalworth testified as to Crosby's injuries. She testified that since the elevator fall, Crosby has been unable to return to work or to do many of the things he [Crosby] enjoyed doing prior to the accident. Later in the trial, and over objection by the defendant, the court permitted testimony that bolstered Ms. Stalworth's reputation for truth and veracity. The following exchange took place during the questioning of a witness for the plaintiff:
The defendants, at the time of this ruling, had not impeached, or attempted to impeach, the character or testimony of Helen Stalworth, by the introduction of evidence of bad character on her part, or by any prior inconsistent statement allegedly made by her out of court. Nor was her character or reputation involved as an issue in the trial of this case in any manner. It is well established that the party offering the witness cannot offer proof of the witness's good reputation as a whole or with respect to his truth and veracity unless an effort has been made by the non-offering party to impeach the witness's character. See e.g., C. Gamble, McElroy's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johns Hopkins v. Correia
...The common law in twenty-one of our sister states is in accord with the rule set forth in Belvidere. See Container Corp. of America v. Crosby, 535 So.2d 154, 156 (Ala.1988) ("[A]n elevator, whether passenger or freight, is a common carrier and, as such, is to be operated and maintained with......
-
Kirksey v. Schindler Elevator Corp., CIVIL ACTION 15-0115-WS-N
...heightened duty of care on those who operate and maintain elevators and (arguably) escalators in Alabama. See Container Corp. of America v. Crosby, 535 So.2d 154, 156 (Ala. 1988) ("an elevator, whether passenger or freight, is a common carrier and, as such, is to be operated and maintained ......
- Costa v. Sam's East Inc.
-
Haralson v. United States, CIVIL ACTION 19-0264-WS-MU
...persons engaged in such business." Ensley Holding Co. v. Kelley, 158 So. 896, 898 (Ala. 1934); accord Container Corp. of America v. Crosby, 535 So. 2d 154, 156 (Ala. 1988). A. Negligent Failure to Maintain (Counts Two and Six). The plaintiff bases his negligent failure to maintain claim on ......