Fontenot v. Bramlett

CourtAlabama Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMADDOX; TORBERT
Citation470 So.2d 669
Decision Date19 April 1985
PartiesJohnnie Francis FONTENOT and Richard Fontenot v. E.C. BRAMLETT. 83-1309.

Page 669

470 So.2d 669
Johnnie Francis FONTENOT and Richard Fontenot
v.
E.C. BRAMLETT.
83-1309.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 19, 1985.

Page 671

Irvin J. Langford for Howell, Johnston & Langford, Mobile, for appellants.

W. Boyd Reeves and Robert J. Mullican for Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, for appellee.

MADDOX, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala.R.Civ.P., motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We reverse.

On April 7, 1983, Johnnie Francis Fontenot, an employee of Mobile Infirmary, was injured when a hospital elevator in which she was riding dropped several floors during a power outage. It is undisputed that the injury occurred while Mrs. Fontenot was working within the course of her employment, within the meaning of the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1975, § 25-5-1.

Mrs. Fontenot and her husband brought separate suits against E.C. Bramlett, the vice-president and administrator of Mobile Infirmary; Montgomery Elevator Company; Alabama Power Company; and several fictitious parties, alleging negligence. Specifically, they alleged that Bramlett negligently failed to provide Mrs. Fontenot with a safe place to work and with a safe elevator. After the two suits were consolidated for trial on a motion by Alabama Power, Bramlett filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. On April 4, 1984, his motion was granted and on June 15, 1984, the Fontenots' motion to reconsider was denied. On July 16, 1984, the trial court certified the dismissal as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., and the Fontenots appealed here.

The sole issue before us is whether the trial court erred in granting Bramlett's motion to dismiss. We find that it did. It is a well-established principle of law in this state that a complaint, like all other pleadings, should be liberally construed, Rule 8(f), Ala.R.Civ.P., and that a dismissal for failure to state a claim is properly granted only when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson, 371 So.2d 899 (Ala.1979). Stated another way, if under a provable set of facts, upon any cognizable theory of law, a complaint states a claim upon which relief could be granted, the complaint should not be dismissed. Childs v. Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Co., 359 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1978).

Where a 12(b)(6) motion has been granted and this Court is called upon to review the dismissal of the complaint, we must examine the allegations contained therein and construe them so as to resolve all doubts concerning the sufficiency of the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. First National Bank v. Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc., 398 So.2d 258 (Ala.1981). In so doing, this Court does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, only whether he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail. Karagan v. City of Mobile, 420 So.2d 57 (Ala.1982).

Applying this standard of review to the present case, we are not persuaded that the Fontenots would be unable to recover against Bramlett under any cognizable theory of law or under any set of facts. Quite the contrary, the Fontenots' complaint clearly sets forth a cause of action sounding in negligence, a theory upon which plaintiffs in similar actions have previously prevailed.

Code 1975, § 25-1-1, specifically provides:

"(a) Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be reasonably safe for the employees engaged therein and shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards and shall adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and

Page 672

the places where the employment is performed reasonably safe for his employees and others who are not trespassers, and he shall do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, health and safety of his employees and others who are not trespassers.

"(b) Every employer and every owner of a place of employment, place of public assembly or public building, now or hereafter constructed, shall so construct, repair and maintain the same as to render it reasonably safe; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to impose upon any such owner any duties to his tenant, the members of his family, employees, guests or invitees or others entering upon the premises under the tenant's title, or the public, not now imposed upon him by law.

"(c) For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
156 practice notes
  • McInnish v. Bennett, 1120465.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 21, 2014
    ...he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail. Karagan v. City of Mobile, 420 So.2d 57 (Ala.1982).”Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985). “[I]f under a provable set of facts, upon any cognizable theory of law, a complaint states a claim upon which relief could be g......
  • Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. J.M. Tull Metals Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 17, 1993
    ...plaintiff will ultimately prevail, [but] only whether he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail." Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985) (emphasis Goodyear sued Tull Metals ("Tull"), seeking indemnity for the amounts paid to David Cook, an employee of Tull, for ......
  • Procter & Gamble Co. v. Staples
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1989
    ...upon the one who has control or custody of the employment or place of employment. Is that duty delegable? In Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669 (Ala.1985), this Court observed the following regarding § "In accord with this statute, which is merely a codification of earlier common law, Fore......
  • Duran v. Buckner, 2120837.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 27, 2014
    ...pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. Civ. P.].’“646 So.2d [8,] 10 [ (Ala.1994) ] (quoting earlier cases, including Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985) (emphasis in Fontenot ) (citations omitted)).”Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d at 177. Whether the doctrine of state-agent immunity ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
156 cases
  • McInnish v. Bennett, 1120465.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 21, 2014
    ...he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail. Karagan v. City of Mobile, 420 So.2d 57 (Ala.1982).”Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985). “[I]f under a provable set of facts, upon any cognizable theory of law, a complaint states a claim upon which relief could be g......
  • Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. J.M. Tull Metals Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 17, 1993
    ...plaintiff will ultimately prevail, [but] only whether he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail." Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985) (emphasis Goodyear sued Tull Metals ("Tull"), seeking indemnity for the amounts paid to David Cook, an employee of Tull, for ......
  • Procter & Gamble Co. v. Staples
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1989
    ...upon the one who has control or custody of the employment or place of employment. Is that duty delegable? In Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669 (Ala.1985), this Court observed the following regarding § "In accord with this statute, which is merely a codification of earlier common law, Fore......
  • Duran v. Buckner, 2120837.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 27, 2014
    ...pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. Civ. P.].’“646 So.2d [8,] 10 [ (Ala.1994) ] (quoting earlier cases, including Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985) (emphasis in Fontenot ) (citations omitted)).”Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d at 177. Whether the doctrine of state-agent immunity ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT