Wallace v. The Hous. Auth. of the City of Talladega

• Decision Date: 14 April 2023
• Docket Number: 2210486
• Parties: Harold Wallace v. The Housing Authority of the City of Talladega
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

1

Harold Wallace v. The Housing Authority of the City of Talladega

No. 2210486

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

April 14, 2023

Appeal from Talladega Circuit Court (CV-18-900509)

EDWARDS, JUDGE.

Harold Wallace appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Talladega Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of The Housing Authority of the City of Talladega ("the Housing Authority") as to his claims for alleged injuries that he suffered as a result of a fall while descending the back-porch stairs to his apartment. Because we agree with Wallace's argument that the trial court erred by not applying the standard discussed in Coggin v. Starke Bros Realty Co., 391 So.2d 111 (Ala. 1980) (plurality opinion) (quoted with approval in Vick v. H.S.I. Mgmt Inc., 507 So.2d 433, 435 (Ala. 1987)), in granting the Housing Authority's motion for a summary judgment, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The following factual summary is based on the parties' evidentiary submissions regarding the Housing Authority's motion for a summary judgment. For several years Wallace was a tenant of an apartment in the Housing Authority's Curry Court apartment complex. In 2015, Wallace suffered a stroke. In 2016, he applied to the Housing Authority for a transfer to the Knoxville Homes apartment complex, where his elderly mother resided, so that he could assist her and so that relatives in or near that complex could easily check on him. The Housing Authority approved Wallace's request and authorized his transfer, subject to the availability of an apartment.

Wallace moved to his Knoxville Homes apartment on December 16, 2016. He testified in his December 2019 deposition that the Housing Authority had informed him that his Knoxville Homes apartment had been inspected and was ready for him to move in. According to Wallace, however, when he arrived to move into the apartment it was not ready. He stated that the apartment was dirty, that there were indications of roach and rat issues, that the floors needed additional work, that the cabinet under a sink had a hole that needed repair, and that the handrails around the back and front porches and the back-porch stairs had been removed and not replaced. Wallace stated that he could not return to his former apartment and that he proceeded to move into his Knoxville Homes apartment despite the Housing Authority's purported misrepresentation as to the readiness of the apartment.

The deposition colloquy between Wallace and the Housing Authority's counsel included the following:

"[The Housing Authority's counsel]: ... What was it about the apartment that you did not think was ready?

"[Wallace]: It didn't have no rail. They cut the rails and -- they cut the rails off. But I was told it going to be fixed within a day or two. That's why I move in, because I thought they going to fix it and it's been three years.^[1] "[The Housing Authority's counsel]: All right. So you were told that the rails, which you saw were down, would be fixed within a day or two after you moved in?

"[Wallace]: Yes."

Wallace stated that a Housing Authority employee again informed him that "[t]hey were going to fix everything a week later" but, Wallace stated, "they didn't."

The Housing Authority's counsel asked Wallace about a December 15, 2016, move-in-inspection form for his Knoxville Homes apartment, which included Wallace's purported signature on a signature line for "Resident Acceptance." That form contains line items for various parts of the apartment rooms (doors, floors, etc.), but no line item specifically for porches or stairs; all line items are checked "P," which appears to indicate they were acceptable. Also, there was an area on the move-in-inspection form for "work items" and comments, but those areas are blank. When asked about the move-in-inspection form, Wallace stated that the essentially illegible signature was not his signature, but he then stated "[t]hat's probably when I had that stroke. I don't know. Because I know I write bad with my hand." When questioned again about whether the signature was his, Wallace stated: "I don't know. I don't know, but I'm saying -- you know, because I can't write with it right now, but if I did, [the employee who also signed the inspection form] had told me that one was ready." Wallace denied ever inspecting the Knoxville Homes apartment before the day he moved in. Also, according to Wallace, the employee who signed the move-in-inspection form was "from Curry Court." Wallace denied ever going to the Knoxville Homes apartment with the employee at issue, though he admitted that that employee had been present and had opened the door to the Knoxville Homes apartment on the day that Wallace moved.

Wallace stated that from the day he moved into his Knoxville Homes apartment on December 16, 2016, until his fall on December 29, 2016, he had three conversations with employees of the Housing Authority about installing the porch-and-stair railings. He stated that initially he was told that the person who installed railings was deceased.

Nevertheless, according to Wallace, he continued to ask about the railings, and the employees of the Housing Authority repeatedly told him that the railings would be reinstalled.

According to Wallace, on the morning that the fall occurred, he and a friend who had come to check on him were going to go to breakfast. Wallace stated that he fell while descending the back-porch stairs; the friend was locking the back door when Wallace fell. Wallace stated that he lost his balance stepping down on the second step of the three steps down from the back porch, that he was using his cane to help balance himself as he descended the stairs, but that he fell nevertheless. Wallace attributed his fall to the lack of a railing and stated that he landed on the concrete sidewalk when he fell but, fortunately, had not hit pieces of cut railing that were protruding from the ground where the previous rails had been removed. According to Wallace, as a result of the fall he had injured his right shoulder and his knees and perhaps his neck, the latter of which he had previously injured and had surgically repaired in 2008.

On December 17, 2018, Wallace filed a complaint in the trial court against the Housing Authority, and he subsequently amended his complaint. Wallace alleged that his injuries from the fall were the result of negligence or wantonness by the Housing Authority or the person or legal entity who was responsible for the maintenance of his Knoxville Homes apartment. On October 1, 2021, the Housing Authority filed a motion for a summary judgment. The Housing Authority argued that it was entitled to a summary judgment because the absence of the back-porch stair railing was an open and obvious danger of which Wallace was aware, and, it argued, it therefore had no further duty to Wallace. The Housing Authority relied on our supreme court's decision in Daniels v. Wiley, 314 So.3d 1213 (Ala. 2020), in support of its argument.

In support of its motion for a summary judgment, the Housing Authority included excerpts from Wallace's deposition testimony. Wallace opposed the Housing Authority's motion for a summary judgment, and he submitted his entire deposition testimony in support of his opposition to the Housing Authority's motion. The materials before the trial court also included a copy of the move-in-inspection form and pictures of the front and back porches and stairs with railings that had been installed after Wallace's fall. After a hearing on the Housing Authority's motion, the trial court entered an order on February 2, 2022, granting the Housing Authority a summary judgment as to Wallace's claims based on the authority of Daniels.^[2]

"'This Court's review of a summary judgment is de novo. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 886 So.2d 72, 74 (Ala. 2003). We apply the same standard of review as the trial court applied. Specifically, we must determine whether the movant has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Blue Cross &Blue Shield of Alabama v. Hodurski, 899 So.2d 949, 952-53 (Ala. 2004). In making such a determination, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Wilson v. Brown, 496 So.2d 756, 758 (Ala. 1986). Once the movant makes a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to produce "substantial evidence" as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala. 1989); Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12. "[S]ubstantial 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 Assur. Co. of Fla., 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).'"

Prince v. Poole, 935 So.2d 431, 442 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So.2d 1035, 1038-39 (Ala. 2004)).

On appeal, Wallace argues that the trial court erred by relying on the holding in Daniels, which rejected Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (Am. L Inst. 1965) as being a correct statement of Alabama law as to a landlord's duty. In support of his argument, Wallace relies, in part, on cases that were expressly overruled in Daniels. See discussion, infra. However, as he did before the trial court, Wallace also relies on Coggin, which reflects a separate line of authority applying the principles discussed in Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 360-361 (Am. L. Inst. 1965) in determining a landlord's duty. To...