Sewell v. Webb
| Citation | 702 So.2d 1222 |
| Parties | Willia Dean Lawrence SEWELL, as trustee of the Bessie Maddox Lawrence Trust v. Thomas WEBB and Weyerhaeuser Company. 2940330. |
| Decision Date | 18 August 1995 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Robert F. Prince and Silas G. Cross, Jr., of Prince, Poole & Cross, P.C., Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
John A. Owens of Owens & Carver, Tuscaloosa; Sandra C. Guin of Phelps, Jenkins, Gibson & Fowler, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
On November 6, 1991, Willia Dean Lawrence Sewell filed a complaint in the Lamar County Circuit Court against Thomas Webb and Weyerhaeuser Company. In her complaint, Sewell alleged that on November 10, 1990, Webb and Weyerhaeuser had unlawfully entered upon 37 acres of land she owned and cut down, destroyed, injured, and removed trees, saplings, seedlings, shrubs, bushes, and other plant life existing on that land. Sewell sought compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000, claiming that as a result of Webb and Weyerhaeuser's trespass, her land had been damaged. Sewell also sought punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, claiming that Webb and Weyerhaeuser's conduct had been willful, wanton, reckless, and/or oppressive.
The case was tried before a jury beginning on August 15, 1994. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Sewell on her trespass and conversion claims. The issues of compensatory and punitive damages were submitted to the jury, and the jury awarded Sewell $35,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. On September 21, 1994, Sewell filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a motion for additur, which was denied by the trial court on December 8, 1994.
Sewell appeals, raising two issues: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion and thereby erred in denying her challenges for cause as to three prospective jurors and also in later denying her motion for a new trial; and (2) Whether the jury's verdict of punitive damages was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, was inadequate as a matter of law, and was so inadequate as to indicate prejudice, passion, or other improper motive, so that the trial court abused its discretion and erred to reversal in failing to set aside the jury's verdict and in not granting a new trial.
Sewell first argues that the trial court erred in denying her challenges for cause as to three prospective jurors, Larry Crowley, M.L. Brown, and Jackie Murphy.
Sewell's attorney began the initial questioning on voir dire by asking all the prospective jurors whether any of them worked for Weyerhaeuser. Larry Crowley, the first prospective juror in question, responded that he and his father were in the logging business, and that at the time of the trial they were doing business, under contract, with Weyerhaeuser. Upon further questioning by Sewell's attorney, Crowley stated that his business relationship with Weyerhaeuser would influence his decision in the case. Thereafter, Weyerhaeuser's attorney asked Crowley whether he could be fair and impartial in spite of his business relationship with Weyerhaeuser, to which Crowley stated that he could. However, after voir dire of all the prospective jurors, Sewell's attorney challenged Crowley for cause. Crowley was then questioned by the trial judge, in open court, and the following transpired:
Thereafter, the trial judge denied Sewell's challenge for cause as to prospective juror Crowley.
Sewell's attorney also asked all the prospective jurors whether any of them knew Delmer Harris, a key witness for Webb and Weyerhaeuser. M.L. Brown, the second prospective juror in question, responded that he was related by marriage to Harris. Brown's wife was Harris's sister-in law. Upon additional questioning by Sewell's attorney, Brown further stated that he would have a tendency to believe Harris over other witnesses "because I know how truthful he is." Thereafter, Weyerhaeuser's attorney questioned Brown, asking Brown whether he could be fair and impartial in spite of the fact that Harris was his brother-in-law. Brown stated that he could render a fair and impartial decision. However, after voir dire of all the prospective jurors, Sewell's attorney also challenged Brown for cause. Brown was subsequently questioned by the trial judge, at the bench, and the following transpired:
The trial judge then denied Sewell's challenge for cause as to prospective juror Brown.
The third prospective juror in question, Jackie Murphy, also responded that he knew Harris. Murphy stated that he was Harris's nephew; Harris's wife and Murphy's mother were sisters. Upon additional questioning by Sewell's attorney, Murphy stated that his relationship to Harris could possibly influence his decision. Like Crowley and Brown, Murphy was also asked by Weyerhaeuser's attorney whether he could be fair and impartial in spite of the fact that Harris was his uncle, to which Murphy responded that he could. However, after voir dire of all the prospective jurors, Sewell's attorney also challenged Brown for cause. Thereafter, Brown was questioned by the trial judge, at the bench, and the following transpired:
The trial judge then denied Sewell's challenge for cause as to prospective juror Murphy.
The general grounds for which a prospective juror may be challenged for cause are set forth in § 12-16-150, Ala.Code 1975. Other common law grounds for challenge for cause exist that are not inconsistent with the statute. Wood v. Woodham, 561 So.2d 224 (Ala.1989). In Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229, 232 (Ala.1989), our supreme court summarized the law on challenges for cause as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Moebes
...the trial court erred when it failed to set aside the jury's punitive damages verdict and denied her a new trial. See Sewell v. Webb, 702 So.2d 1222 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (reviewed sub nom. Ex parte Weyerhaeuser Co.). The Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court had abused its discreti......
-
Ex parte Weyerhaeuser Co., Inc.
...that the trial court had abused its discretion by not granting Sewell's motions to strike the three jurors for cause. Sewell v. Webb, 702 So.2d 1222 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). We granted the defendants' petition for certiorari Before this Court can address the issue of the challenged jurors, it mu......
-
Flowers v. Dean, No. 2070344 (Ala. Civ. App. 5/1/2009)
...made an attempt to relate that argument to the issue of the purported inadequacy of the damages awards. See Sewell v. Webb, 702 So. 2d 1222 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995), rev'd, Ex parte Weyerhauser, supra. In this case, in an apparent attempt to relate their argument to the inadequacy of the damag......
-
FLOWERS v. DEAN
...made an attempt to relate that argument to the issue of the purported inadequacy of the damages awards. See Sewell v. Webb, 702 So.2d 1222 (Ala. Civ.App.1995), rev'd, Ex parte Weyerhaeuser, supra. In this case, in an apparent attempt to relate their argument to the inadequacy of the damages......