Phillips v. United Services Auto., 1051520.

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: Murdock
• Citation: 988 So.2d 464
• Parties: Samantha PHILLIPS, a minor, by and through her father, Shawn M. PHILLIPS v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION.
• Docket Number: 1051520.
• Decision Date: 11 January 2008

988 So.2d 464 Samantha PHILLIPS, a minor, by and through her father, Shawn M. PHILLIPS
v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. 1051520. Supreme Court of Alabama. January 11, 2008.

[988 So.2d 465]

Mark C. Wolfe and J. Knox Boteler III of Moore & Wolfe, P.C., Mobile, for appellant.

William D. Montgomery, Jr., and James A. Rives of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Daphne, for appellee.

MURDOCK, Justice.

Samantha Phillips, a minor, by and through her father Shawn M. Phillips, as next friend, appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Mobile Circuit Court in favor of United Services Automobile Association ("USAA"). We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

On July 11, 2004, Samantha and her friend, Katie Catlin, were involved in a single-car accident. At the time of the accident, Katie was driving her father's truck; Samantha was a passenger in the

988 So.2d 466

truck. Samantha and Katie were returning to Katie's home, having just returned a movie to a movie-rental store. As the two were proceeding west on Cottage Hill Road, Katie recognized two of her friends who were in an automobile that was stopped at an exit from a subdivision, waiting to turn onto Cottage Hill Road. As Katie and Samantha passed by the subdivision exit, Katie turned and waved to her friends, taking her eyes off the road. As she did so, the truck began to cross the centerline of the road and enter the eastbound lane. As the truck began to veer into the eastbound lane, Samantha got Katie's attention by exclaiming "Katie! Katie! Katie!" After hearing her name, Katie returned her attention to the road and saw an oncoming car. She swerved to the right, causing the truck to leave the roadway and enter the shoulder of the westbound lane. Katie then swerved back to the left and lost control of the truck. The truck crossed Cottage Hill Road, flipped over, and came to rest in a yard bordering the eastbound lane. Samantha was ejected from the truck during the accident and sustained an injury to her back.

On February 14, 2005, Samantha, acting through her father, sued Katie and USAA, which provided an automobile insurance policy to the Phillipses. The complaint alleged that Katie had acted wantonly in causing the accident and that USAA was liable for the payment of underinsured-motorist benefits to Samantha because the liability limits of Katie's automobile insurance would not adequately compensate Samantha for the injuries she sustained in the accident.

On May 1, 2006, USAA filed a motion for a summary judgment. It argued that it could be liable for the payment of underinsured-motorist benefits to Samantha only if, among other things, Samantha could demonstrate that Katie was legally liable for Samantha's injuries. It argued that, under the Alabama Guest Statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 32-1-2, Katie could be liable to Samantha only if she had acted wantonly in causing Samantha's injuries.¹ There was no evidence, it asserted, that Katie had acted wantonly with regard to the accident.

Shortly after USAA filed its summary-judgment motion, Samantha settled her claim against Katie, leaving only her claim against USAA. In her response to USAA's motion, Samantha argued that there was evidence demonstrating that Katie had acted wantonly with regard to the accident, particularly based on "her awareness of several driving rules of conduct" that Katie had learned in her driver's education course at her high school. According to Samantha, Katie "appreciated an injury would more than likely occur if she ignored the rules of conduct taught in her driver's training and reenforced during her driver's license exam," and Katie's "conscious disregard for a driver's rules of conduct resulted in her passenger sustaining significant physical injuries." Thus, Samantha argued, USAA's motion was due to be denied.

On June 9, 2006, the trial court granted USAA's summary-judgment motion and entered a summary judgment in its favor. Samantha appeals.

988 So.2d 467

II. Standard of Review

The standard by which we review a summary judgment is well settled:

"This Court reviews a summary judgment de novo. Turner v. Westhampton Court, L.L.C., 903 So.2d 82, 87 (Ala. 2004). We seek to determine whether the movant has made a prima facie showing that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and has demonstrated that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Turner, supra. In reviewing a summary judgment, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Turner, supra. Once the movant makes a prima facie showing that he is entitled to a summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to produce `substantial evidence' creating a genuine issue of material fact. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989). `Substantial evidence' is `evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Fla., 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989)."

Muller v. Seeds, 919 So.2d 1174, 1176-77 (Ala.2005).

III. Analysis

Samantha did not in the trial court and does not on appeal challenge USAA's assertion that it can be liable to her only if she can demonstrate that Katie was liable for the injuries Samantha sustained. She also does not challenge USAA's assertion that the Alabama Guest Statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 32-1-2, applies to this case and prevents recovery against it absent a showing that Katie acted wantonly in causing Samantha's injuries. Samantha argues only that she presented substantial evidence indicating that Katie acted wantonly, so that a summary judgment in favor of USAA was inappropriate.

In Ex parte Anderson, 682 So.2d 467 (Ala.1996), this Court discussed the concept of wantonness in the context of operating an automobile:

"In a case subject to the Guest Statute, a plaintiff's showing of `wanton misconduct' requires more than a showing of some form of inadvertence on the part of the driver; it requires a showing of some degree of conscious culpability. George v. Champion Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 852 (Ala.1991).

"What constitutes wanton misconduct depends on the facts presented in each particular case. Central Alabama Electric Cooperative v. Tapley, 546 So.2d 371 (Ala.1989); Brown v. Turner, 497 So.2d 1119 (Ala.1986); Trahan v. Cook, 288 Ala. 704, 265 So.2d 125 (1972). A majority of this Court, in Lynn Strickland Sales & Service, Inc. v. Aero-Lane Fabricators, Inc., 510 So.2d 142 (Ala.1987), emphasized that wantonness, which requires some degree of consciousness on the part of the defendant that injury is likely to result from his act or omission, is not to be confused with negligence (i.e., mere inadvertence):

"`Wantonness is not merely a higher degree of culpability than negligence. Negligence and wantonness, plainly and simply, are qualitatively different tort concepts of actionable culpability. Implicit in wanton, willful, or reckless misconduct is an acting, with knowledge of danger, or with consciousness, that the doing or not doing of some act will likely result in injury....

"`Negligence is usually characterized as an inattention, thoughtlessness, or heedlessness, a lack of due

988 So.2d 468

...