Wright v. Alabama Power Co.
Decision Date | 06 January 1978 |
Citation | 355 So.2d 322 |
Parties | Robert J. WRIGHT, an Individual, et al. v. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, a corp. SC 2561. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
R. Ben Hogan and Robert H. King, Gadsden, Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, Birmingham, for appellants.
C. William Gladden, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an appeal taken from a directed verdict entered in favor of the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff, Robert J. Wright, sought damages for his injury and his wife sought damages for loss of his consortium, for "willful or malicious failure . . . to warn or guard against" a certain fence on Alabama Power Company property which the plaintiff asserted constituted a dangerous instrumentality to members of the public who used Lake Neely-Henry near Gadsden.
The suit grew out of an incident which occurred July 19, 1975. Wright, retired from the Navy Submarine Service, suffered injuries when he collided with a fence partially submerged in the lake while he was riding backward on an inner tube attached by a ski rope to a power boat. The boat was being driven at a high rate of speed by a friend who testified that he saw the fence and stopped the boat, but that the force of the boat's turn carried the inner tube into a collision course with the fence. The lake was created when Neely-Henry Dam was constructed on the Coosa River by Alabama Power Company. Prior to building the dam, the Power Company purchased land on both banks of the river up to the datum plane of 511 feet above mean sea level.
The fence which Wright struck was a metal and wooden one which was placed on the property before it was purchased by the Power Company. The original fence belonged to Alabama Technical College and extended to the bank of the Coosa River, and was constructed to prevent cattle owned by the trade school from wandering onto adjacent land. When the dam was built and the lake was created, the fence extended into the lake for a distance of some 50 feet and would become partially submerged during periods when the water level reached its peak. At other times, the fence would be out of the water.
The plaintiff argues that Alabama Power Company knew the fence was on the property and willfully determined not to remove it and willfully determined not to place any guards or warnings around or in the vicinity of the fence before flooding the area.
Plaintiff claims the Power Company had knowledge of the existence of the fence because the Company had the land surveyed and cleared of trees and brush before the dam was built and the water level was raised. Plaintiff contends, therefore, that a jury could infer from these facts the requisite knowledge of the condition, from which the jury could infer that the Company knew of the dangerous condition and willfully or maliciously failed to warn or guard against it.
In short, plaintiff contends that there was a scintilla of evidence that the company is liable under the exception contained in § 3 of Act No. 463, Acts of Alabama 1965, approved August 19, 1965, page 663, § 35-15-4, et seq. Code 1975.
Act No. 463 recites:
More than half of the states now have laws similar to Act No. 463. The first of these was apparently enacted in Michigan in 1953. M.C.L.A., § 300.201; M.S.A., § 13.1485. The Michigan Court of Appeals held in Estate of Thomas v. Consumers Power Co., 58 Mich.App. 486, 228 N.W.2d 786 (1975), that:
The Alabama Act expressly states that its purpose is "to clarify and codify the common-law with respect to the duty of care owed by landowners . . . ." (emphasis supplied).
The Act was intended to insure that landowners were not to be held to a standard of due care toward persons upon their land with permission for hunting, fishing and recreational purposes. The first of these acts was passed when forest owners opened their lands to deer hunters after suffering damage to their forests from excessive deer. The forest owners later became concerned about their potential liability for injuries suffered by those who had been invited on their land to hunt deer; therefore, they sought a statutory limitation upon their liability. Copeland v. Larson, 46 Wis.2d 337, 174 N.W.2d 745 (1970). The legislation places persons upon the land with permission or invitation, but for purposes unrelated to the owner's business, in the status of licensees with the landowners' duty being the duty owed to licensees.
The plaintiff in this case was on the premises with at least the implied permission of the Power Company. The Power Company does not deny that members of the general public freely engage in water sports on Lake Neely-Henry. The plaintiff is, then, by statute, considered a licensee.
The issue here is: whether the trial court should have submitted the issue to the jury. A similar question as was presented this Court in W. S. Fowler Rental Equipment Co. v. Skipper, 276 Ala. 593, 165 So.2d 375 (1963). The test to be used to determine the propriety of a directed verdict is found in Rule 50(e), A.R.C.P., which reads as follows:
We discussed this rule in detail in Loeb and Co., Inc., v. Martin, 295 Ala. 262, 327 So.2d 711 (1976). In Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor, 293 Ala. 484, 306 So.2d 236 (1975), this Court, referring to Rule 50(e), stated "Whether or not the scintilla rule requires a given case to go to the jury is dependent upon the substantive law."
The duty of care owed by landowners to licensees was generally expressed by this Court in Fowler, supra, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Orr By and Through Orr v. Turney
...from debris on land caused injury); Bryant v. Morley, 406 So.2d 394 (Ala.1981) (dive into shallow swimming pool); Wright v. Alabama Power Co., 355 So.2d 322 (Ala.1978) (partially submerged fence injured inner tube rider towed behind boat); McMullan v. Butler, 346 So.2d 950 (Ala.1977) (slip ......
-
Thacker v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
...care and skill." Russell ex. rel. Russell v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 564 F. Supp. 1043, 1047 (N.D. Ala. 1983) (quoting Wright v. Ala. Power Co., 355 So. 2d 322, 325 (Ala. 1978)); see also Clark v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 606 F. Supp. 130, 131 (N.D. Ala. 1985). This exception may apply where, as her......
-
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island ()
...Fowler, at 276 Ala. 600, 165 So.2d 375."Both the statute and the Fowler decision were considered and approved in Wright v. Alabama Power Company, 355 So.2d 322 (Ala. 1978), wherein this Court held:" ‘As we read the Fowler decision, it stands for the proposition that a landowner will general......
-
Locke v. Liquid Air Corp.
...including water hazardous due to a concealed or submerged condition. See, e.g., Glover v. City of Mobile, supra; Wright v. Alabama Power Co., 355 So.2d 322 (Ala.1978). We conclude that the Tolbert court's adoption of Section 339 did not overrule prior Alabama straight negligence precedent r......