Goodyear v. Vinson, 1972057
| Decision Date | 02 July 1999 |
| Docket Number | 1972057 |
| Parties | SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Nathaniel Willie Jefferson Brock
Appeals from Jefferson Circuit Court
On Application for Rehearing
APPLICATION OVERRULED.
I concur to overrule the application for rehearing. At the risk of being labeled a slave to procedural niceties, I adhere to the view that faithful adherence to the commands of procedural rules has a purifying effect upon the process by which we make often momentous substantive determinations.
The requirement that one seeking to overrule adverse precedent obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court does not require a litigant to do a "vain thing." In his dissent, Justice Houston cites several cases in which the Court said it was not necessary for a party to perform a vain or useless act. None of those cases excuses a party from the ordinary rule that a party must make a record in the trial court in order to assert error on appeal. Moreover, Justice Houston's argument overlooks the fact that these defendants had available Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P., under which, in a proper case, a trial court considering a motion could make a ruling adverse to a party, yet consistent with precedent and, at the same time, find that an interlocutory appeal "would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," because "there is substantial basis for difference of opinion," given subsequent decisions. See, e.g., Professional Ins. Corp. v. Sutherland, 700 So. 2d 347 (Ala. 1997) ().
Furthermore, requiring a party to make a record in the trial court, even in the face of settled precedent, forces a party to seek a timely ruling so as to avoid a waiver. Requiring timely action thereby assists the appellate court in identifying the appropriate stage for applying the new rule in further proceedings after remand. Finally, it is anomalous to reverse a trial court's order on a ground the trial court was never asked to consider.
In their answer, both Goodyear and Brock asserted that the statutory damages cap was applicable to this case. However, merely reciting a defense in an answer does not create a record that can be reviewed on appeal, because a matter stated in an answer does not require a ruling by the trial court. See Violette v. Smith & Nephew Dyonics, Inc., 62 F.3d 8, 11 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1167 (1996) (). Only when a party seeks by motion in the proceeding to apply a defense raised in an answer will that party get a ruling that can be reviewed on appeal.
The dissent relies on Wallace v. Doege, 484 So. 2d 404, 405 (Ala. 1986), as authority for the proposition that a limitations defense can be reviewed on appeal merely because it was stated in the answer. That case expressly refers to the trial court's refusal to hear the limitations defense when it was presented at the close of all the evidence. In Ex parte State Dep't of Revenue, 595 So. 2d 472 (Ala. 1991), also relied upon in the dissent, the trial court declined to address a constitutional issue. The record in the present case simply does not support a conclusion that the trial court refused to apply the cap statute. Farm Country Homes, Inc. v. Rigsby, 404 So. 2d 573 (Ala. 1981), the final case relied upon by the dissent in this context, speaks to the necessity that a defendant raise the limitations defense in a pleading. To infer from that case that merely raising the issue by answer is sufficient to preserve error for appeal, a point that could not have been at issue in Rigsby, where the pleadings made no reference at all to limitations, would require too great a leap for me.
Goodyear and Brock unquestionably moved for a remittitur. Thus, we are not here presented with an issue regarding the necessity that a party object and state grounds in support of the objection.[1] Rule 7(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., requires that a motion state the grounds on which the motion is based and state them "with particularity." How "particular" must one be when the trial court is bound by precedent? The only caselaw from this Court that I have found touching upon the necessity for an objection and a statement of the grounds therefor, in the context of an adverse precedent, is Ex parte Beavers,598 So. 2d 1320 (Ala. 1992), where this Court, dealing with a defendant's right to claim the benefit of precedent in the form of an opinion of the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case, held that the defendant was not excused from preserving error in the trial court. In dictum, the Court suggested that the announcement of a "new rule" in an unrelated action might excuse the defendant from the burden of objecting, citing United States v. Scott, 425 F.2d 55, 57-58 (9th Cir. 1970), after remand, 446 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1971). Scott, however, has subsequently been overruled in United States v. Keys, 133 F.3d 1282 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on rehearing, 143 F.3d 479 (9th Cir.), second amendment, 153 F.3d 925 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 211 (1998), because the creation of such an exception was deemed inconsistent with a federal rule of criminal procedure requiring an objection to a jury instruction.
The dissent refers to the defendants' raising the defense in a motion for a judgment as a matter of law and in objections to jury instructions. Because § 6-11-23 condemns any reference to the cap in the presence of the jury, at pain of mistrial, a preverdict motion for a judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the evidence and based on the cap statute, if granted, or the court's giving an instruction that applied the cap, would have put the trial court in error for disclosing to the jury that it could not return a verdict in excess of the cap. How can we reverse the trial court's judgment on the basis of its correctly denying the motion for a judgment as a matter of law or correctly overruling objections to instructions?
Goodyear and Brock did not mention the cap statute in their motions for remittitur. We must look to the defendants' "Memorandum of Law and Submission of Authorities in Support of Defendants' Post-Judgment Motions" for grounds that relate to the cap statute. Other papers can be considered in determining grounds for a motion. Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 957 F.2d 515, 517 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 829 (1992). However, the defendants' treatment of the cap in their memorandum can fairly be described as a request that the court view the statutory limit of $250,000 as directory and not mandatory. The thrust of the memorandum is that the cap may not technically be applicable, by reason of Henderson, yet the defendants urge that the wisdom of the Legislature in setting a limit of $250,000 is informative to the trial court as it engages in the process of arriving at an appropriate reduction in punitive damages pursuant to the guidelines established in cases from this Court, such as Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby, 539 So. 2d 218 (Ala. 1989), authorizing a trial court to order a remittitur. Compare the mandatory characterization of the impact of the cap in the defenses contained in the answers of both Goodyear and Brock. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Goodyear's answer state:
Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Brock's answer are identical to paragraphs 14 and 15 of Goodyear's answer. These statements are insufficient for the purposes for which the defendants now seek to use them, because they do not insist upon the cap as a limit but rather invoke it as a mere guideline from the legislature.
I am not persuaded that the ground stated in the defendants' motions, when read in connection with their memorandum, satisfies the requirements of Rule 7(b)(1). Nor do I favor resorting to the rule of construction stated in Rule 1, Ala. R. Civ. P. -- that the rules should be construed to assure "the just ... determination of every action" -- as a basis for disregarding the appellants' noncompliance with our procedural rules.
The appellants attempt to charge this Court with violating their right to due process by developing a novel rule of procedural default and applying it to them for the first time, and without notice. That charge has no merit. I therefore concur to overrule the application for rehearing.
I concur with the denial of the defendants' application for rehearing. In the application, as well as in the appeal itself, the defendants are urging us to hold the trial court in error for not applying § 6-11-21, Ala. Code 1975, to cap punitive damages at $250,000. The defendants, however, did not put the trial court in error by insisting, post verdict as manifestly contemplated by § 6- 11-21 and § 6-11-22, that the trial court apply the cap as such.
Section 6-11-21 reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial