Enochs v. Lessors, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 August 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:11-cv-782-CSC
• Parties: STUART LEE ENOCHS and JONATHAN MICHAEL SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. LESSORS, INC., and TOMMIE LEE CHAMBERS, JR., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

STUART LEE ENOCHS and JONATHAN MICHAEL SMITH, Plaintiffs,

v.LESSORS, INC., and TOMMIE LEE CHAMBERS, JR., Defendants.

CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:11-cv-782-CSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: August 24, 2012

(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises from a collision between a tractor trailer driven by defendant Tommie Lee Chambers, Jr. ("Chambers") and a vehicle driven by plaintiff Stuart Lee Enochs ("Enochs") in which plaintiff Michael Jonathan Smith ("Smith") was a passenger. Defendant Lessors, Inc. owned the trailer that was attached to Chambers' tractor. The plaintiffs allege that Chambers negligently and wantonly failed to yield the right of way on Alabama Highway 229 causing Enochs' vehicle to collide with Chambers' tractor trailer. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants. The court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to its diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D. ALA. LR 73.1, the parties have consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case and ordering the entry of final judgment.

On August 2, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' wantonness claims. (Doc. # 22). The defendants also seek summary judgment on all of plaintiff Jonathan Michael Smith's claims pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b) because Smith has failed to prosecute his claims by failing to submit to a deposition and failing to respond to discovery. Id. The plaintiffs have responded to the motion for summary judgment.¹ After carefully considering the motion, the plaintiffs' responses to the motion and the supporting and opposing evidentiary materials, the court concludes that the motion for summary judgment is due to be granted in part and denied in part.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Summary judgment is appropriate 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine [dispute]² as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citation omitted) (footnote added); FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a) ("The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."). The party moving for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district courtof the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [record, including pleadings, discovery materials and affidavits], which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine [dispute] of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant may meet this burden by presenting evidence which would be admissible at trial indicating there is no dispute of material fact or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-324.

Once the movant meets his evidentiary burden and demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish, with appropriate evidence beyond the pleadings, that a genuine dispute material to his case exists. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c) ("A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must be support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg, 498 F.3d at 1263.

To survive the movant's properly supported motion for summary judgment, a party is required to produce "sufficient [favorable] evidence" "that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). "If the evidence [on which the nonmoving party relies] is merely colorable . . . or is not significantly probative . . . summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-250. "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576-1577 (11th Cir. 1990) quoting Anderson, supra. Conclusory allegations based on subjective beliefs are likewise insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact and, therefore, do not suffice to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., Inc., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). Hence, when a nonmoving party fails to set forth specific facts supported by appropriate evidence sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case and on which the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 ("[F]ailure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.").

For summary judgment purposes, only disputes involving material facts are relevant. United States v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). What is material is determined by the substantive lawapplicable to the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Lofton v. Sec'y of Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 809 (11th Cir. 2004) ("Only factual disputes that are material under the substantive law governing the case will preclude entry of summary judgment."). "The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case." McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). To demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact, the party opposing summary judgment "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine [dispute] for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co, Ltd., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In cases where the evidence before the court which is admissible on its face or which can be reduced to admissible form indicates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-324 (summary judgment appropriate where pleadings, evidentiary materials and affidavits before the court show there is no genuine dispute as to a requisite material fact); Waddell, 276 F.3d at 1279 (to establish a genuine dispute of material fact, the nonmoving party must produce evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict in his favor). However, if there is a conflict in the evidence, "the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Ruiz deMolina v. Merritt & Furman Ins. Agency, 207 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 2000).

III. FACTS

Construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiffs, the following facts are undisputed.³ At approximately 9:55 p.m. on August 30, 2010, plaintiff Enochs was driving his Honda Passport northbound on Alabama Highway 229 in Macon County, Alabama. Smith was a passenger in Enochs' vehicle.

Defendant Chambers was driving a tractor trailer southbound on Interstate 85 when the temperature control warning light in his cab came on. Chambers owns the trailer and Lessors, Inc. owns the trailer. Chambers was working pursuant to a contractor lease agreement with Lessors. Chambers exited Interstate 85 at the Tallassee exit to check on the temperature warning light.

At the top of the exit ramp, Chambers recognized that he could turn right or left. Although there was a Shell station located to the left of the exit ramp, Chambers was unfamiliar with the area and did not know if the station could accommodate his tractor trailer. Because it was dark and he did not want to get stuck on the road, Chambers made the decision to cross Alabama Highway 229 to pull over on the downward entrance ramp to check his engine. Chambers estimated that it would take him 10 seconds to turn left to goto the Shell station or 15 seconds to get his 70-foot tractor trailer across the road to the downward entrance ramp. According to Chambers, he looked both ways and saw no other vehicles on the road. When he pulled across Alabama Highway 229, he blocked the northbound lane and part of the southbound lane.

Enochs was traveling approximately 45 miles per hour northbound on Alabama Highway 229 when he crested a hill and saw Chambers' truck across the road. According to Enochs, Chambers "shot straight across" the road. Although Enochs attempted to steer his vehicle to avoid a collision, he collided with the tractor driven by Chambers. In the collision, Enochs suffered neck, shoulder and elbow injuries requiring several surgeries.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Wantonness Claims. The defendants have moved for...