Johnson v. Horne
Decision Date | 03 October 1986 |
Citation | 500 So.2d 1024 |
Parties | Willis JOHNSON v. Richard D. HORNE, Wyman O. Gilmore, and Barry Hess. 84-662. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thomas H. Nolan, Jr., and Ann E. Taylor, Mobile, for appellant.
W. Boyd Reeves and Kirk C. Shaw, Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, for appellees.
This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiff/Appellant, Willis Johnson, was injured in a one-vehicle accident in August 1977, on a county road in Washington County. He hired attorneys Barry Hess and Richard Horne of Mobile to represent him in a claim against Washington County based on its alleged negligence in causing his accident. Hess and Horne associated attorney Wyman O. Gilmore of Grove Hill to assist them in this case.
Mr. Gilmore filed suit on Johnson's behalf against Washington County within the one-year provided by the statute of limitations. Because Gilmore failed to file a claim with the Washington County Commission within the year, as required by Code 1975, § 6-5-20 and § 11-12-8, however, the trial court granted summary judgment for the county.
Within three months, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Horne and Gilmore, asserting two counts, one for negligence and one for breach of contract. Through subsequent amendments, Plaintiff's wife and Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company were added as plaintiffs; Plaintiffs joined attorney Barry Hess as a party defendant, and added a count for wantonness; and Plaintiff Willis Johnson increased his demand for damages.
Plaintiff's 1 underlying claims against Washington County were tried as part of the malpractice action to determine whether Defendants' alleged negligence had been the cause, in fact, of Plaintiff's failure to recover.
At a pre-charge conference, before the lawyers began their closing arguments to the jury, the trial judge told both sides to limit their arguments to the underlying cause of action against Washington County:
Whereupon, Plaintiff's counsel stated:
The charge to the jury read, in relevant part:
The jury answered the first question in the negative, finding that Plaintiffs would not have recovered against Washington County. The effect of that decision was that, Defendants' alleged legal malpractice notwithstanding, their conduct was not the proximate cause of any injury to Plaintiffs; therefore, the trial judge entered judgment for Defendants. Plaintiff Willis Johnson moved for a new trial. His motion was denied, and this appeal followed.
Defendants contend that the bifurcation issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southtrust Bank v. Jones, Morrison, Womack
...must show that, but for the defendant's negligence, he would have recovered on the underlying cause of action.' Johnson v. Horne, 500 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Ala.1986)." Cribbs v. Shotts, 599 So.2d 17, 19 (Ala. 1992). See generally W. Atchison & R. MacKenzie, The Professional Liability of Attorne......
-
Lively v. Kilgore
...the plaintiff must show that but for the defendant's negligence he would have recovered on the underlying cause of action, Johnson v. Horne, 500 So.2d 1024 (Ala.1986), or must offer proof that the outcome of the case would have been different. Hall v. Thomas, 456 So.2d 67 (Ala.1984).' "Inde......
-
Boros v. Baxley
...the plaintiff must show that but for the defendant's negligence he would have recovered on the underlying cause of action, Johnson v. Horne, 500 So.2d 1024 (Ala.1986), or must offer proof that the outcome of the case would have been different. Hall v. Thomas, 456 So.2d 67 (Ala.1984)." McDuf......
-
Independent Stave Co., Inc. v. Bell, Richardson and Sparkman, P.A.
...the plaintiff must show that but for the defendant's negligence he would have recovered on the underlying cause of action, Johnson v. Horne, 500 So.2d 1024 (Ala.1986), or must offer proof that the outcome of the case would have been different. Hall v. Thomas, 456 So.2d 67 McDuffie v. Brinkl......