Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 August 1991 |
Citation | 589 So.2d 684 |
Parties | Gerald HANNERS, d/b/a Newton Peanut Company v. BALFOUR GUTHRIE, INC. 1900718. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Steven P. Schmitt, Tallassee, and Joseph W. Adams, Ozark, for appellant.
Steadman S. Shealy, Jr. of Buntin, Cobb & Shealy, P.A., Dothan, and J. Wayne Pierce and David J. Reed, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
The plaintiff, Gerald Hanners, d/b/a Newton Peanut Company, appeals from the judgment entered on a $60 jury verdict in his favor against Balfour Guthrie, Inc. ("Balfour"), in this fraud action based on alleged misrepresentations concerning Balfour's intent to perform under two contracts with Hanners for the sale of peanuts. We affirm.
For a detailed statement of the circumstances surrounding this case, see Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So.2d 412 (Ala.1990), where this Court reversed a summary judgment for Balfour, holding that a fact question existed as to whether Hanners had justifiably relied on certain alleged misrepresentations by representatives of Balfour.
Two issues have been presented for our review on this appeal:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting Hanners's right to discovery; and 2. Whether the trial court erred in resubmitting this case to the jury after the jury had returned an inconsistent verdict.
With regard to the first issue, we note that Hanners propounded to Balfour certain interrogatories and requests for admission of facts, to which Balfour objected on various grounds. After considering Balfour's argument that the interrogatories were overly broad and vague and that answering them would not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, would be unduly burdensome, and would require it to divulge confidential information, and that the requests for admission of facts actually called for legal conclusions, the trial court entered a protective order limiting Hanners's right to discovery. Hanners contends that his interrogatories and requests for admission of facts were in proper form and that the information requested therein was vital to his case. Balfour contends that the trial court acted within its discretion in controlling the discovery process. We agree.
In Ex parte McTier, 414 So.2d 460, 461-62 (Ala.1982), this Court, in a case similar to the present one, reiterated the applicable scope of appellate review of discovery rulings:
In the present case, as in Ex parte McTier, the record does not show a clear abuse of discretion on the trial court's part in limiting discovery. We note that in reaching this conclusion we have carefully reviewed each of the interrogatories...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M & J Materials, Inc. v. Isbell, 2080880.
...of having to try the entire case, with all ten witnesses and twelve exhibits, again.“Based on the authority of Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 589 So.2d 684 (Ala.1991), [the employer's request] to award it a new trial because the Court instructed the jury to deliberate again is DENIED.”Th......
-
AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. v. Dearman
...I agree with the majority that the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury was erroneous. In Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 589 So.2d 684, 686 (Ala.1991), our supreme court observed that a trial court did not err "by recharging the jury, which had already heard all of the evid......