Gross v. Dailey

• Docket Number: SC-2022-1007
• Decision Date: 16 June 2023
• Parties: Selanmin D. Gross v. Christopher Dailey
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

1

Selanmin D. Gross v. Christopher Dailey

No. SC-2022-1007

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 16, 2023

Appeal from Conecuh Circuit Court (CV-20-900030)

MENDHEIM, Justice

Selanmin D. Gross appeals from the Conecuh Circuit Court's order granting a new trial in an action commenced by Christopher Dailey against Gross stemming from a motor-vehicle accident. We reverse and remand.

I. Facts

On April 6, 2020, Dailey commenced this suit against Gross and Gross's automobile-insurance company,^[1] asserting that Gross's negligence and/or wantonness in operating his motor vehicle on August 5, 2019, had resulted in a collision with Dailey's motor vehicle and that Dailey had suffered physical, mental, and emotional injuries as a result of the accident.^[2] Subsequently, Dailey's action was consolidated with an action commenced by Ken W. Houston against Gross that stemmed from the same accident.^[3] However, the trial court dismissed Houston's action following the filing of a joint stipulation of dismissal.

On October 18, 2022, Conecuh Circuit Judge Jack B. Weaver presided over a one-day jury trial concerning Dailey's negligence claim against Gross. See note 2, supra. The only witnesses were Dailey and Gross. Dailey testified that on the morning of the accident he was driving a truck for his employer, the Alabama Department of Transportation, from Evergreen to Brewton to pick up a boom and that two coworkers, Ellis Gill and Ken Houston, were in the truck with him. According to Dailey, before the accident there had been a heavy rain, but at the time of the accident there was a lighter rain. Dailey stated that the accident occurred on Highway 31 in Castleberry. Dailey testified that Gross's truck, as it was coming from the opposite direction down a hill, started to turn sideways and "fishtail." As Gross's truck came toward Dailey's work truck, Dailey said, Gross's truck veered over the center line and hit Dailey's truck head-on, causing a "big blow" to the truck and to his body. Daily testified that he had sustained injuries to his forearm and his lower back in the accident.

Gross testified that he was driving his 1996 Ford Ranger truck from Brewton to Evergreen to see his mom who lived in Evergreen. He stated that a little before the accident it had been "[s]torming real bad" but that it was drizzling when he reached the area where the accident occurred.

Gross stated that he was coming over a hill, that the speed limit was 55 miles per hour, and that when he looked down the hill he saw

"a State truck and a tractor on the side of -- the right side of the road, and the State truck was still halfway in the road. So when I seen the State truck, I just hit the brakes. And when I hit the brakes, [my truck] just hydroplaned, and [my] truck lost control. Basically, that was it."

Following closing arguments by the parties' attorneys, Judge Weaver instructed the jury. Concerning the verdict forms, Judge Weaver stated:

"[THE COURT:] Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for your convenience, the Court has prepared for you, for your use in this case, verdict forms, which I will explain them to you. No inference is to be drawn by you from the fact that the Court has supplied you with these forms or the order in which the Court reads them to you. In other words, if I read one before I read the other, please don't take any inference that I read one before the other, because I have no opinion about the facts of the case.

"When you have reached a verdict, you will select and complete the form which corresponds to the verdict and which is to be signed by the foreperson, and all 12 must agree. In this case, all 11 must agree before a verdict will be returned back into court.^[4]

"Now, ladies and gentlemen I'm going to tell you, the first verdict form I read says, verdict, 'we, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Christopher D. Dailey, and assess damages of blank dollars.' There's a place to date it and a place to sign it by the foreperson.

"Okay. The next one says, 'we, the jury, find for the defendant.' There's a place to date it and a place for the foreperson to sign it.

"Now, ladies and gentlemen, when you go back to the jury room in just a minute, you're going to select a foreperson. That foreperson will preside over the deliberations and sign the verdict form which -- when all 11 of you have agreed on a verdict. It must be the verdict of all 11 of you."

Upon the conclusion of its deliberations, the jury returned to the courtroom, and the following occurred:

"THE COURT: Okay. All right. [C.N.], you served as foreperson on this case. Thank you.

"The verdict reads, 'we, the jury, find for the defendant.' And I'm going to poll the jury. I generally do this, so I'm going to start right here on the front row.

"(Whereupon, all 11 jurors individually confirmed the verdict.)

"THE COURT: Let the record reflect that all 11 affirmed that this was indeed their verdict, signed by the foreperson this date."

On October 19, 2022, the trial court entered the jury-verdict forms into the record, which showed that the foreperson had signed both verdict forms. The first verdict form simply stated: "We the jury find for the defendant" and had the date filled in by hand above a blank line labeled "Date" and the signature of the foreperson on a second blank line labeled "Foreman." The second verdict form stated: "We the jury find for the plaintiff, Christopher D. Dailey, and assess damages of $0 dollars." The zero was handwritten. That form likewise had the date filled in by hand above a blank line labeled "Date" and the signature of the foreperson on a second blank line labeled "Foreman."

On October 19, 2022, Dailey filed a one-page "Motion for New Trial Due to Inconsistent Verdict." In full, the motion stated:

"The jury returned a verdict for both the defendant and the plaintiff. This is an inconsistent verdict.

"'[T]he general rule is that, where a verdict in a civil case is inconsistent and contradictory, it should be set aside and a new trial granted. See generally 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 66 (1950). Alabama adheres to this rule.' Luker v. City of Brantley, 520 So.2d 517[, 521] (Ala. 1987) (citing Ward v. Diebold, Inc., 486 So.2d 1261 (Ala. 1986); Wickham v. Cotton, 465 So.2d 388 (Ala. 1985); Sibley v. Odum, 257 Ala. 292, 58 So.2d 896 (Ala. 1952)."^[5]

On the same date, Gross filed a response in opposition to the motion for new trial in which Gross noted that Judge Weaver had announced a verdict for the defendant in open court and had polled each juror and that each juror had confirmed the verdict for the defendant. He argued that "the verdict was in no way inconsistent: the verdict form for the Plaintiff awarded zero (0) dollars in damages which is perfectly consistent with a verdict for the Defendant."

On October 21, 2022, Judge Weaver entered an order granting a new trial, which stated that "[t]he jury returned a verdict for both the defendant and the plaintiff (awarding the plaintiff $0.00). The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial." The order then quoted verbatim the portion of Dailey's motion for a new trial that quoted from Luker v. City of Brantley, 520 So.2d 517 (Ala. 1987), and cited other cases decided by this Court. The order then stated that the motion for a new trial was granted, and it set the new trial for February 27, 2023.

On November 17, 2022, Gross filed a "Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order Granting a New Trial" in which he reiterated that the verdict announced from the bench and confirmed by juror polling was for Gross. Gross attached to that motion an affidavit from the jury foreperson, in which she stated, in pertinent part:

"4. After deliberation, the jury came to the unanimous conclusion that we were to deliver a verdict for the defendant, Selanmin Gross, and against the plaintiff, Christopher Dailey.

"5. It was my understanding that I was supposed to sign and deliver only one verdict form. However, another juror told me that I was supposed to sign and deliver both forms. Therefore, based on that instruction, I signed and delivered both forms. However, in order to clarify that the jury's verdict was for the defendant, Selanmin Gross, I noted that the plaintiff was to be assessed damages of zero dollars ($0).

"6. As stated above, there was no question that the jury definitely found for the defendant, Selanmin Gross, and against the plaintiff, Christopher Dailey."

On November 17, 2022, Judge Weaver entered an order denying Gross's postjudgment motion.^[6] The order did not provide a rationale for his conclusion. On November 22, 2022, Gross appealed.

II. Standard of Review

"Granting or refusing a motion for new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court; the exercise of that discretion carries with it a presumption of correctness which will not be disturbed by this court unless some legal right was abused and the record plainly and palpably shows the trial court was in error."

Hill v. Cherry, 379 So.2d 590, 592 (Ala. 1980).

III. Analysis

Gross's contention on appeal is straightforward: that the verdict was not inconsistent because everything indicated that the jury returned a verdict in his favor. Gross first notes, as he did to the trial court, that the colloquy in open court showed that the verdict was for the defendant, Gross. Judge Weaver first announced the verdict in open court as follows "The verdict reads, 'we, the jury, find for the defendant.'" Judge Weaver did not read the second verdict form in open court.^[7] Without prompting from either party, Judge Weaver also polled each of the jurors in open court to confirm a verdict for the defendant. After polling the jurors, Judge Weaver stated: "Let the record reflect that all 11 affirmed that this was indeed their verdict, signed by the...