Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Vinson

• Decision Date: 23 April 1999
• Citation: 749 So.2d 393
• Parties: GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY and Nathaniel Willie Jefferson Brock v. Teresa M. VINSON. Teresa M. Vinson v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Nathaniel Willie Jefferson Brock.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

749 So.2d 393

GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY and Nathaniel Willie Jefferson Brock v. Teresa M. VINSON.

Teresa M. Vinson v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Nathaniel Willie Jefferson Brock.

1986.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 23, 1999.

Rehearing Overruled July 2, 1999.

Andrew L. Frey and Melanie L. Oxhorn of Mayer, Brown & Platt, New York City, New York; and Larry W. Harper, H.C. Ireland III, and W. Perry Webb of Porterfield, Harper & Mills, P.A., Birmingham, for appellants/cross appellees Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Nathaniel Willie Jefferson Brock.

Stephen D. Heninger and Joseph W. Buffington of Heninger, Burge & Vargo, L.L.P., Birmingham; and Sheldon L. Watkins of Robinson & Watkins, Birmingham, for appellee/cross appellant Teresa M. Vinson.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala.R.App.P.

KENNEDY, COOK, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur.

HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, and BROWN, JJ., concur specially.

HOOPER, Chief Justice (concurring specially).

As Chief Justice, I intend to remain sensitive to the goal of preserving a consistent administration of justice in the State of Alabama. I think this Court should revisit Henderson v. Alabama Power Co., 627 So.2d 878 (Ala.1993). See my special writing in Smith v. Schulte, 671 So.2d 1334 (Ala.1995) (Hooper, C.J., dissenting from the overruling of the application for rehearing). All parties litigating in the courts of this State should now be on notice that this Court is willing to reconsider the Henderson ruling that the punitive damages cap of § 6-11-21, Ala.Code 1975, is unconstitutional.

HOUSTON, Justice (concurring specially).

I concur in the summary affirmance; however, I write separately to once again express my views on Henderson v. Alabama Power Co., 627 So.2d 878 (Ala.1993).

On June 25, 1993, this Court, by a 5 to 3 vote, declared Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-21, limiting an award of punitive damages to $250,000, unconstitutional as violating Article I, § 11, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, which guarantees the right to trial by jury. Henderson. The correctness of this Court's decision in Henderson was challenged in dissents to Henderson when it was released. Although the majority opinion in Henderson has been the opinion of this Court for almost six years, the holding in Henderson and the selective application of its interpretation of the words "the right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate" have been criticized from the day that case was released and as recently as January 1999. See Henderson, 627 So.2d at 894-915 (Maddox, Houston, and Steagall, JJ., dissenting); Ex parte Giles, 632 So.2d 577 (Ala.1993) (Maddox, J., concurring specially, at 586-87; Houston, J., concurring in the result, at 587-89); Bozeman v. Busby, 639 So.2d 501 (Ala. 1994) (Maddox, J., dissenting, at 503; Houston, J., dissenting, at 503-04); Complete Health, Inc. v. White, 638 So.2d 784 (Ala.1994) (Houston, J., dissenting, at 790); Smith v. Schulte, 671 So.2d 1334 (Ala.1995) (Maddox, J., dissenting, at 1347-48; Houston, J., dissenting, at 1348-54; on application for rehearing, Hooper, C.J., dissenting, at 1355-61; Maddox, J., dissenting, at 1361-66; and Houston, J., dissenting at 1366-68); Ex parte Jackson, 672 So.2d 810 (Ala.1995) (Houston, J., concurring in the result, at 811-13); Ray v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Mobile, P.C., 674 So.2d 525 (Ala. 1995) (Maddox, J., dissenting, at 527-30; Houston, J., dissenting, at 530); Loyal American Life Ins. Co. v. Mattiace, 679 So.2d 229 (Ala.1996) (Maddox, J., dissenting, at 245-47); Ex parte Scott, 728 So.2d 172 (Ala.1998) (Houston, J., concurring specially); Oliver v. Towns, 738 So.2d 798, 804 n. 7 (Ala.1999) (Henderson questioned by a majority of the Court).

Henderson, in effect, overruled 83 years of precedent holding that "the State [has] the right to remit punitory damages." Meighan v. Birmingham Terminal Co., 165 Ala. 591, 599, 51 So. 775, 778 (1910). The facts in Meighan showed that between the infliction of the injury and the time of the trial, the Legislature enacted an act that relieved the defendant of liability for damages that might have been assessed for the purpose of punishment. This Court held:

"Exemplary damages are in no case a right of the plaintiff.... The state had the right to remit punitory damages, and by implication did so when it passed the act of ratification."

165 Ala. at 599, 51 So. at 777-78.

The defendants have asked this Court to overrule Henderson. I think this Court should revisit its decision in Henderson; however, I think it should do so only in a case in which the issue of the constitutionality of § 6-11-21 has been properly preserved for review. I thought initially that this was such a case, but, although I carefully examined the record, I was unable to find any adverse ruling by the trial court upon which this Court could predicate error. I must emphasize, though, that this was a very close question, at least from my perspective. However, given my unrelenting criticism of Henderson since the day it was released, I feel that I must exercise extreme caution in choosing the case in which to revisit it. I will not sacrifice other standards of appellate review at the altar of expediency, just so that I can reconsider an issue that, I believe, has been wrongly decided. This Court strives first and foremost to be an "error corrector," not an "error maker." However, when this Court does revisit Henderson in a future case where the issue of the constitutionality of § 6-11-21 is squarely presented, the following well-established principles of law will control my decision.

The right to trial by jury guaranteed by § 11 of the Alabama Constitution is confined to those classes of cases in which the right existed at common law or by statutory law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1901. Gilbreath v. Wallace, 292 Ala. 267, 270, 292 So.2d 651, 653 (1974) (all Justices concurring); Miller v. Gaston, 212 Ala. 519, 103 So. 541 (1925); In re One Chevrolet Auto., 205 Ala. 337, 87 So. 592 (1921); Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 170 Ala. 178, 54 So. 213 (1910). The concept of the constitutional right to trial by jury, extending to those cases in which that right existed by statutory law at the time of the adoption of the most recent Constitution, predated the Constitution of 1901. See Tims v. State, 26 Ala. 165 (1855). This is consistent with the way in which the common law grew in this country. See Manoukian v. Tomasian, 237 F.2d 211, 215 (D.C.Cir.1956).¹ What clear and paramount right did Article I, § 11, of the Constitution of 1901, guarantee to the citizens of this state? Section 11 explicitly states "[t]hat the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." This Court, interpreting these words, has consistently held that the ratification of § 11 effected a "freezing" of the right of trial by jury as that right existed at common law or by statute in 1901. Stated differently, § 11 did not enlarge the right of trial by jury that existed in any individual when the Constitution was ratified. Gilbreath v. Wallace, supra.

What exactly, then, were an individual's rights to a trial by jury before the ratification of the 1901 Constitution? This Court and the Courts of Appeals of this state have held that an individual, before the Constitution was ratified, had the right, in certain cases, to have a 12-person, impartial jury unanimously decide the facts. See Clark v. Container Corp. of America, Inc., 589 So.2d 184 (Ala.1991), citing Gilbreath v. Wallace, supra; Kirk v. State,

247 Ala. 43, 22 So.2d 431 (1945); Baader v. State, 201 Ala. 76, 77 So. 370 (1917); Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, supra; Tims v. State, supra; Culbert v. State, 52 Ala.App. 167, 290 So.2d 235 (1974); Brown v. State, 45 Ala.App. 391, 231 So.2d 167 (1970); Dixon v. State, 27 Ala.App. 64, 167 So. 340, cert. denied, 232 Ala. 150, 167 So. 349 (1936); Walter B. Jones, Trial by Jury in Alabama, 8 Ala. L.Rev. 274, 277 (1956); 16 Ruling Case Law 181 (1917). Of specific importance to this case is the fact that at common law juries were allowed, in proper cases, to assess punitive damages, L. Schleuter and K. Redden, Punitive Damages, § 1.3, at 12 (2d ed.1989); and, indeed, punitive damages were awarded to injured parties who sued. See, e.g., Rhodes v. Roberts, 1 Stew. 145, 146-47 (Ala.1827), where this Court, in affirming a $1,500 judgment against the defendant under a trespass theory, held:

"Where the injury is to the person of the plaintiff, the amount of damages cannot be measured by any certain and precise standard. The negligence may be very gross and reprehensible, and in all such cases the jury may give smart money, if in their view the circumstances are such as to require it."

(Emphasis added.) However, as Rhodes illustrates, even though at common law juries were allowed to assess punitive damages, and even though punitive damages were awarded to injured parties who sued, punitive damages at common law were awarded for the sole purpose of vindicating and protecting society's right (i.e., the right of the public) to be free from certain kinds of egregious tortious conduct, not for the purpose of providing a private compensatory remedy. See, e.g., Meighan v. Birmingham Terminal Co., supra, 165 Ala. at 598-99, 51 So. at 777-78, wherein this Court stated:

"If conceivably a verdict for punitory damages might have been based upon these facts, we think the passage of the act of March 6, 1907, before the time of the trial, though subsequent to the infliction of the injury, ... had the effect to relieve defendant of liability for damages which it is assumed might otherwise have been assessed for the purpose of punishment. Such damages are assessed in proper cases in the interest of the state. They are awarded not for the compensation of the plaintiff, but as a warning to other wrongdoers. A plaintiff has no right to maintain an action merely to inflict

...