Ex parte Jordan
| Decision Date | 17 January 1992 |
| Citation | 592 So.2d 579 |
| Parties | Ex parte Darlene Theresa JORDAN and William Jordan. (In re Darlene Theresa JORDAN and William Jordan, as mother and father of Roberto Jordan, deceased v. GRANNY'S TENDER LOVING DAY CARE, et al.) 1910049. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William A. Scott, Jr. and Wayne Morse of Clark & Scott, P.C. and David H. Marsh of Pittman, Hooks, Marsh, Dutton, Hollis, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Edgar M. Elliott III and Jane G. Ragland of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for respondent Carol G. Hamm.
William J. McDaniel and Edward E. Angwin of McDaniel, Hall, Conerly & Lusk, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent Granny's Tender Loving Day Care and Ruby J. Perkins.
William Jordan sued Granny's Tender Loving Day Care and Carol Hamm, seeking damages under Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-391, for the alleged wrongful death of his four-year-old son, Roberto, who drowned on a field trip while under the care and supervision of the day care center. The Honorable James H. Faulkner, a retired Justice of this Court serving as a judge of the Shelby County Circuit Court, later refused to allow Mr. Jordan's wife, Darlene Theresa Jordan, to join Mr. Jordan as a plaintiff in the action. The Jordans, who at all times relevant to this case have lawfully lived together as husband and wife, then filed this joint petition for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to allow Ms. Jordan to join in the action as a plaintiff. For the following reasons, the writ is denied insofar as the petition seeks relief on behalf of Mr. Jordan; however, the writ is granted insofar as the petition seeks relief on behalf of Ms. Jordan.
Initially, we point out that mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ to be issued only when there is 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Adams, 514 So.2d 845 (Ala.1987).
Because we are asked to enforce a right that is allegedly vested by statute in Ms. Jordan to join in the wrongful death action filed by her husband, there is no basis upon which we can issue a writ in favor of Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan's status as a plaintiff in the action, and his ability to prosecute the action to completion, were in no way affected by the trial judge's ruling. Consequently, Mr. Jordan's request for mandamus relief is denied.
The dispositive issue in this case, which appears to be one of first impression in this state, is whether Ms. Jordan was entitled to join in the wrongful death action filed by her husband. Section 6-5-391, which allows for a cause of action for the wrongful death of a minor, reads as follows:
"When the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons or corporation, his or their servants or agents, the father, or the mother in cases mentioned in section 6-5-390, or, if the father and mother are both dead or if they decline to commence the action, or fail to do so, within six months from the death of the minor, the personal representative of such minor may commence an action, and in any case shall recover such damages as the jury may assess; provided, that an action by any one of them for the wrongful death of the minor shall be a bar to another action either under this section or under section 6-5-410."
(Emphasis added.) Section 6-5-391 specifically incorporates by reference Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-390, which deals with a cause of action for the injury of a minor:
"A father or a mother, provided they are lawfully living together as husband and wife, shall have an equal right to commence an action for an injury to their minor child, a member of the family; provided, however, that in the event such mother and father are not lawfully living together as husband and wife, or in the event legal custody of such minor child has been lawfully vested in either of the parties or some third party, then and in either event the party having legal custody of such minor child shall have the exclusive right to commence such action."
(Emphasis added.) These statutes provide that when the father and the mother of a minor child are lawfully living together as husband and wife, th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 2160823
...also Richardson v. PSB Armor, Inc., 682 So.2d 438, 440 (Ala. 1996) ; Jones v. Conradi, 673 So.2d 389, 394 (Ala. 1995) ; Ex parte Jordan, 592 So.2d 579, 581 (Ala. 1992). ‘[T]he starting point for all statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself,’ and ‘[i]f the statutory lan......
-
Ex parte Uniroyal Tire Co.
...of the legislature to construe the disjunctive conjunction `or' and the conjunctive conjunction `and' interchangeably." Ex parte Jordan, 592 So.2d 579, 581 (Ala.1992) (emphasis added). However, "[w]hile there may be circumstances which call for an interpretation of the words `and' and `or,'......
-
C.C. v. L.J. (In re L.J.)
...See also Richardson v. PSB Armor, Inc.,682 So.2d 438, 440 (Ala.1996); Jones v. Conradi,673 So.2d 389, 394 (Ala.1995); Ex parte Jordan,592 So.2d 579, 581 (Ala.1992). ‘[T]he starting point for all statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself,’ and ‘[i]f the statutory languag......
-
City of Brundidge v. Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt.
...of the legislature to construe the disjunctive conjunction "or" and the conjunctive conjunction "and" interchangeably.’ Ex parte Jordan, 592 So.2d 579, 581 (Ala.1992).... However, ‘[w]hile there may be circumstances which call for an interpretation of the words "and" and "or," ordinarily th......