Ward v. Diebold, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1986 |
| Citation | 486 So.2d 1261 |
| Parties | Donna G. WARD v. DIEBOLD, INC., and Diebold International Sales Corporation. DIEBOLD, INC., and Diebold International Sales Corporation v. Donna G. WARD. 85-13, 85-14. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
George A. Brown, Mobile, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Vincent A. Noletto, Jr., of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Mobile, for appellees/cross-appellants.
Plaintiff, Donna G. Ward, appeals from a judgment which was in her behalf but which awarded zero damages. Defendants, Diebold, Inc., and Diebold International Sales Corporation, cross-appeal. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Plaintiff purchased an old, locked Diebold-Kienzie safe at an estate sale in Mobile, with the hope or expectation that it contained valuable items. Plaintiff contacted the local Diebold manager, Michael Hardegree, Sr., to arrange to have the safe opened.
In her complaint, plaintiff alleged fraudulent representation, breach of contract, negligence, and conversion. In her fraud count, plaintiff alleged that the defendants, fraudulently representing themselves to be experts in opening safes, negotiated with plaintiff, who believed the representations and relied upon them, agreeing to open the safe in plaintiff's presence and then to repair it and return it to her. She further alleged that defendants opened the safe without her being present, and then left it unlocked and unattended. Subsequently, she alleged, the defendants, without her consent, removed the safe to Montgomery, where unskilled personnel effected repairs and in so doing destroyed interior paintings and in other ways caused loss of the safe's antique value, all to the plaintiff's damage. The claims for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion were similar.
The case was tried to a jury. Defendants moved for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case and at the close of all the evidence. These motions were denied. The jury returned the following verdict:
"We, the Jury, find in favor of the Plaintiff and assess her damages at $0."
The trial court entered judgment upon that verdict and taxed costs against the defendants. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial, raising the issue of inconsistency of the verdict, was denied. Defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was also denied. Both plaintiff and defendants appealed.
We need not reach the defendants' argument on appeal, because we are convinced that the cause must be reversed due to the inconsistent verdict.
Similar instances of inconsistent verdicts have not been sanctioned, i.e., Monteleone v. Trail Pontiac, Inc., 395 So.2d 1003 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), cert. denied, 395 So.2d 1005 (Ala.1981) (); Stinson v. Acme Propane Gas Company, 391 So.2d 659 (Ala.1980) ().
In this case, all the theories of plaintiff's action were submitted to the jury under proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shoals Ford, Inc. v. McKinney
...Moore v. Clark, 548 So.2d 1352 (Ala.1989); Clements v. Lanley Heat Processing Equipment, 548 So.2d 1345 (Ala.1989); Ward v. Diebold, Inc., 486 So.2d 1261 (Ala.1986); Stinson v. Acme Propane Gas Co., 391 So.2d 659 (Ala.1980); Odom v. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 1154 (Ala.Civ......
-
Wood v. Courtney, 2040017.
...favor. To find in favor of the plaintiff and then to award no damages is, as a matter of law, inconsistent on its face. Ward v. Diebold, Inc., 486 So.2d 1261 (Ala.1986)." Romans v. J.P. Mills, Inc., 844 So.2d 1239, 1242 (Ala. Civ.App.2002). Therefore, we find Wood's argument on this issue t......
-
Wootten v. Ivey
...A zero verdict based on a nuisance finding without a compensable damage finding would, of course, have been illegal. Ward v. Diebold, Inc., 486 So.2d 1261 (Ala.1986). Thus, for aught that appears from the defense verdicts in this case, they are attributable only the absence of a finding of ......
-
Gross v. Dailey
...... rule.' Luker v. City of Brantley , 520 So.2d. 517[, 521] (Ala. 1987) (citing Ward v. Diebold,. Inc. , 486 So.2d 1261 (Ala. 1986); Wickham v. Cotton , 465 So.2d 388 ......