Jones Express, Inc. v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 16 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | 1070066 and 1090663. |
| Citation | 86 So.3d 298 |
| Parties | JONES EXPRESS, INC. v. Edward E. JACKSON, Sr., and Jacqueline F. Jackson, individually and as custodial parents of Joshua L. Jackson, a minor, deceased. Edward E. Jackson, Sr., and Jacqueline F. Jackson, individually and as custodial parents of Joshua L. Jackson, a minor, deceased v. Charles Quada and Jones Express, Inc. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert Black, Jr., and Doy Leale McCall III of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Montgomery; and Gary Phillips of Harris, Cadell & Shanks, P.C., Decatur, for the appellant Jones Express, Inc., in case no. 1070066.
William H. Webster and Robert C. Black of Webster, Henry, Lyons, White, Bradwell & Black, P.C., Montgomery, for appellees Jones Express, Inc., and Charles Quada, in case no. 1090663.
J. Barton Warren and Derek W. Simpson of Warren & Simpson, P.C., Huntsville, for the appellees/cross-appellants Edward E. Jackson, Sr., and Jacqueline F. Jackson, individually and as custodial parents of Joshua L. Jackson, a minor, deceased.
On Rehearing Ex Mero Motu
This Court's opinion of June 30, 2010, in case no. 1070066, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
In case no. 1070066, Jones Express, Inc., a defendant below, appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, Edward E. Jackson, Sr., and Jacqueline F. Jackson (“Jackie”),1 both individually and as custodial parents of Joshua L. Jackson, a minor, deceased, on the Jacksons' claim seeking damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision and for wrongful death. In case no. 1090663, the Jacksons appeal from a judgment entered in favor of Charles Quada on their claim seeking damages for negligence. We reverse both judgments and remand the case for a new trial.
During the early morning hours of March 30, 2004, Joshua L. Jackson, a minor, was driving a motor vehicle on County Road 35 in Morgan County. Edward, his father, was a passenger in the vehicle. Quada, an employee of Jones Express, was driving on Highway 67 in a tractor-trailer truck owned by Jones Express. The intersection of Highway 67 and County Road 35 is controlled by a traffic light. At the intersection, Quada's truck and Joshua's vehicle collided.
Both Joshua and Edward were injured in the accident. On April 7, 2004, Edward and Jackie, both individually and as custodial parents of Joshua, filed a complaint seeking damages from Quada and Jones Express stemming from the collision. Joshua died on May 15, 2004, of injuries he sustained in the collision.
The Jacksons amended their complaint several times. The last amended complaint alleged that Quada, who at the time of the accident “was on the job and acting as an agent for Jones Express,” failed to stop at a red traffic light before entering the intersection of Highway 67 and County Road 35 and colliding with Joshua's vehicle. The complaint sought damages from Quada for negligence and wantonness and sought damages from Jones Express, under a theory of respondeat superior, for negligent entrustment and for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. Additionally, the Jacksons sought damages against Quada and Jones Express for wrongful death. Finally, the Jacksons alleged a claim against their insurer, Alfa Mutual Insurance Company (“Alfa”), for uninsured– and/or underinsured-motorist benefits.
After discovery, the case proceeded to trial. The defendants moved for a judgment as a matter of law (“JML”) at the close of the Jacksons' case and again at the close of the evidence. Both motions were denied.
The trial court instructed the jury on three claims: (1) negligence by Quada; (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision on the part of Jones Express; and (3) negligent entrustment by Jones Express. As to the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claim, the jury was instructed as follows:
“To prevail on this negligence claim, the plaintiffs must prove to your reasonable satisfaction the following elements:
“Number one, that Mr. Quada was an incompetent driver.
“Number two, that Jones Express knew or reasonably should have known through the exercise of due diligence that Mr. Quada was an incompetent driver.
“And number three, that Jones Express failed to exercise reasonable care in ... hiring, supervising or retaining Mr. Quada after being placed on notice that he was an incompetent driver.”
As to causation for all three claims, the trial court instructed, in pertinent part:
“If, after you consider all of the evidence, you are reasonably satisfied that [Quada and Jones Express] were negligent in one or more of the respects that have been claimed by the [Jacksons] in this case, then the next thing you must do is to decide whether or not such negligence on the part of [Quada and Jones Express] was the legal or proximate cause of injuries suffered by Edward Jackson and injuries to and the death of Joshua Jackson.”
The trial court also submitted two verdict forms to the jury: one to be completed if the jury found for the Jacksons, and one to be completed if it found for Quada and Jones Express. The first form, titled “Plaintiff's Verdict,” stated:
“If, after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence, you find for the plaintiffs on one or more of their claims, then you should use the following verdict form:
“CLAIM 1: THAT THE DEFENDANTS, CHARLES QUADA AND JONES EXPRESS, INC., WERE NEGLIGENT IN OPERATING THE TRUCK AND PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE PLAINTIFFS' INJURIES.
“We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiffs on this claim and against the defendants, Charles Quada and Jones Express, Inc.
“We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiffs on this claim and against the defendant, Jones Express, Inc.
AND PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE PLAINTIFFS' INJURIES.
“We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiffs on this claim and against the defendant, Jones Express, Inc.
_________________________
Foreperson”
(Capitalization in original.) The trial court further instructed the jury that, as to each claim, if it was satisfied of the truthfulness of the claim, or if the verdict form represented its verdict, the foreperson should sign his or her name under the applicable claim. The verdict form also provided a space for the jury to designate an award of damages.
As to the second form, titled “Defendants' Verdict,” the trial court instructed:
”
Unlike the plaintiff's verdict form, this form did not provide the jury the opportunity to render a verdict in favor of the defendants on each individual claim or in favor of an individual defendant.
After deliberations, the jury returned the “Plaintiff's Verdict” form with the foreperson's signature under the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claim, as well as an award of $600,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. On April 25, 2007, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Jacksons and against Jones Express based on that verdict:
“In accordance with the jury's verdict returned in this action on this date, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court that a judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the plaintiffs, Edward E. Jackson and Jackie Jackson, and against the defendant, Jones Express, Inc., for compensatory damages in the amount of $600,000.00 and for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00, awarding total damages in the sum of $700,000.00, plus the costs of court, for which let execution issue.”
Jones Express filed a renewed motion for a JML; a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment entered on the jury's verdict; and a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied those motions, and Jones Express appealed (case no. 1070066).
On June 26, 2008, this Court, noting that the trial court's April 25, 2007, order did not indicate that a judgment had been entered with respect to the claims against Quada or Alfa and, thus, that the judgment appealed from appeared to be nonfinal, remanded the case for the trial court (1) to certify the judgment in favor of the Jacksons against Jones Express as a final judgment pursuant Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.; (2) to adjudicate the remaining claims, thus making the judgment final and appealable; or (3) to do nothing, in which case the appeal would be dismissed as being from a nonfinal judgment. 2
On July 2, 2008, on remand, the trial court entered a judgment restating its April 25, 2007, judgment in favor of the Jacksons and against Jones Express on the negligent hiring, retaining, and supervising claim. The trial court also entered a judgment in favor of Quada, Jones Express, and Alfa on all the Jacksons' remaining claims.
According to the record in case no. 1090663, on August 1, 2008, the Jacksons filed a Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booker v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC
...So. 2d 280, 291 (Ala. 2003) (citing Voyager Ins. Cos. v. Whitson, 867 So. 2d 1065, 1073 (Ala. 2003)). See also Jones Express, Inc. v. Jackson, 86 So. 3d 298, 305 (Ala. 2010) ("[I]mplicit in the tort of negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision is the concept that, as a conseque......
-
Shumate v. Selma City Bd. of Educ.
...training, supervision, and retention is a claim made against an employer for acts performed by an employee. See Jones Expr., Inc. v. Jackson, 86 So.3d 298, 304 (Ala.2010) ( citing University Fed. Credit Union v. Grayson, 878 So.2d 280, 291 (Ala.2003) (“[A] party alleging negligent supervisi......
-
Hunter v. Etowah Cnty. Court Referral Program, LLC
...and/or retention, the plaintiff must establish that the allegedly incompetent employee committed...[a] tort."). Jones Exp., Inc. v. Jackson , 86 So.3d 298, 304 (Ala. 2010). The Jones court summarized these cases to mean, "implicit in the tort of negligent hiring, retention, training, and su......
-
Burback v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...may not be held directly liable on a theory of negligent supervision or training because no tort occurred. Jones Express, Inc. v. Jackson, 86 So.3d 298, 303–04 (Ala.2010) (per curiam). The court has no evidence before it from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant negligently......
-
Point: Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice-a 10-year Review of the Alabama Supreme Court's Treatment of Jury Verdicts in the Plaintiffs' Favor
...punitive); Ross v. Rosen-Rager, 67 So.3d 29 (Ala. 2010) ($13,343 compensatory and $350,000 punitive); Jones Express, Inc. v. Jackson, 86 So.3d 298 (Ala. 2010)(on rehearing ex mero motu; $600,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive).39. The only jury verdict affirmed in 2011 was O'Rear v. B.H......