Joe F. Garrie v. Summit Treestands, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/30/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080164 Joe F. G a r r i e v. Summit Treestands, LLC Appeal from Pickens C i r c u i t (CV-04-124) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g BRYAN, J u d g e . This and court's opinion o f A u g u s t 2 1 , 2009, i s w i t h d r a w n , the following i s substituted therefor. The plaintiff, J o e F. G a r r i e , appeals from j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , Summit a summary Treestands, 2080164 LLC ("Summit"), i n t h i s sustained when G a r r i e action fell seeking damages f o r i n j u r i e s from a t r e e stand manufactured by Summit. Facts On J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2003, G a r r i e was h u n t i n g "Viper" tree stand m a n u f a c t u r e d b y Summit. purchased the tree stand Outdoor S p o r t s , I n c . tree stand, tree i n a 1998 m o d e l Garrie's son h a d f o r G a r r i e a t a s t o r e owned b y W i l e y The t r e e s t a n d i s a two-part i . e . , the hunter uses the t r e e stand f r o m w h i c h he h u n t s . The top h a l f "climbing" to climb the of the tree stand appears t o c o n s i s t of the seat used by the h u n t e r ; the bottom half i s the platform on w h i c h t h e h u n t e r ' s f e e t r e s t . top h a l f and t h e bottom h a l f o f t h e t r e e s t a n d by a r o p e o r t e t h e r . o f an a d j u s t a b l e The are connected The t r e e s t a n d a p p e a r s t o be o f t h e t y p e i n which each h a l f of the t r e e stand use 1 part that attaches t o the t r e e by wraps around t h e t r e e . The a d j u s t a b l e p a r t i s s e c u r e d a r o u n d t h e t r e e i n s u c h a manner as to allow enough room t o maneuver the t r e e w h i l e c l i m b i n g . the tree stand up and down When t h e h u n t e r c l i m b s t h e t r e e , t h e T h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l does n o t c o n t a i n a v i s u a l of the t r e e stand. 1 2 depiction 2080164 platform of the tree stand attaches boots. The straps have bands platform, t h e h u n t e r c l i m b s up o r down t h e t r e e b y l i f t i n g t h e then applying platform h i s feet a short pressure by p r e s s i n g to the tree. operated i n a s i m i l a r Garrie's tree the shoulders. The o t h e r was either to the up o r down, down, t h u s securing the of the tree stand i s safety belt On one e n d , t h e s a f e t y b e l t fits body equipped somewhere with under a the hunter's end o f t h e s a f e t y b e l t a t t a c h e s tree. On t h e d a y he f e l l , belt. Garrie hunting secured fashion. stand hunter's distance The t o p h a l f designed to prevent f a l l s . around feet f i t around the heels. with the hunter's that hunter's platform With rubber by s t r a p s t o the hunter's Garrie was n o t u s i n g the safety t e s t i f i e d t h a t he u s e d t h e s a f e t y b e l t s e a s o n s when he f i r s t starting using to the f o r two the tree stand. G a r r i e s t a t e d t h a t he s t o p p e d u s i n g t h e s a f e t y b e l t b e c a u s e he had heard s t o r i e s about h u n t e r s and hung w i t h [ t h e s a f e t y b e l t s ] . " he d i d not b e l i e v e while " g e t t i n g smothered t o death Garrie also t e s t i f i e d the safety b e l t was d e s i g n e d t o be u s e d c l i m b i n g up o r down t h e t r e e w i t h Garrie testified that, after 3 that the tree hunting stand. i n h i s tree stand 2080164 during the afternoon o f J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2003, he b e g a n t o c l i m b down t h e t r e e u s i n g t h e t r e e s t a n d . had climbed down t h e t r e e four G a r r i e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he or f i v e f e e t became d i s e n g a g e d f r o m t h e f o o t Garrie stated that the tree stand on t h e s i d e . " his f e e t when one o f h i s strap on t h e p l a t f o r m . c o n s e q u e n t l y " d r o p p e d down Garrie t e s t i f i e d that, while attempting to get f o o t b a c k i n t o t h e f o o t s t r a p , he s l i p p e d a n d f e l l to the ground. The paraplegic. Medical fall broke Garrie's back and rendered G a r r i e was s u b s e q u e n t l y t r e a t e d a t DCH Center ("DCH"). The medical records of t r e a t m e n t a t DCH i n d i c a t e t h a t he h a d s t a t e d t h a t ill and had a s y n c o p a l e p i s o d e w h i l e hunting" him Regional Garrie's "he became on t h e d a y he fell. Procedural On December Outdoor Sports, 29, 2004, History Garrie sued I n c . ("Wiley O u t d o o r " ) , Summit alleging and (1) c l a i m s under t h e Alabama E x t e n d e d M a n u f a c t u r e r ' s L i a b i l i t y ("AEMLD") f o r t h e m a n u f a c t u r e and s a l e unreasonably stand, wantonness, t o warn, dangerous (4) n e g l i g e n t (6) b r e a c h tree Doctrine of a defective (2) f a i l u r e t o warn, of express warranty, 4 Wiley negligence, (5) w a n t o n and (3) failure a n d (7) b r e a c h o f 2080164 implied warranty of merchantability. Summit a n d W i l e y O u t d o o r each judgment. filed a motion f o r a summary summary-judgment m o t i o n , failed to present Summit asserted substantial evidence I n Summit's (1) " t h a t of a [Garrie] design or m a n u f a c t u r i n g d e f e c t i n t h e t r e e s t a n d as i s r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m u n d e r t h e AEMLD"; (2) " [ t h a t G a r r i e d i d ] not offer alternative substantial evidence d e s i g n as r e q u i r e d of a safer, practical, u n d e r t h e AEMLD"; (3) " [ t h a t G a r r i e ] f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y t o s u p p o r t t h e allegations contained i n h i s complaint"; (4) " [ t h a t Summit w a s ] e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w as a r e s u l t o f [Garrie's] contributory negligence and wantonness c l a i m s claim. Summit various evidentiary indicating negligence"; supported that tree unreasonably dangerous. summary-judgment motion, evidentiary materials, that the tree The t r i a l which i s filed was motion expert not with testimony defective or a r e s p o n s e t o Summit's supported by various including expert testimony i n d i c a t i n g stand i s defective court including stand Garrie Garrie's were subsumed b y h i s AEMLD i t s summary-judgment materials, the a n d (5) t h a t and unreasonably e n t e r e d a summary 5 dangerous. judgment i n f a v o r o f 2080164 W i l e y Outdoor, and t h e t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h a t judgment as f i n a l , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. appeal from that judgment. The trial court e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n Summit's f a v o r . postjudgment motion, Garrie a timely filed which Garrie d i d not subsequently Garrie f i l e d a was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . appeal t o t h e supreme c o u r t , supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t , to and t h e pursuant § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Standard o f Review "In r e v i e w i n g t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , 'we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d as the t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e evidence b e f o r e [ i t ] made o u t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , ' B u s s e y v . John Deere Co., 531 So. 2d 860, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d w h e t h e r t h e movant was ' e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e burden shifts to t h e nonmovant to present s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g s u c h an i s s u e . Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . Evidence i s ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' i f i t i s o f 'such w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y t h a t fairminded p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d a t 543 ( q u o t i n g West v . F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Our review i s f u r t h e r subject t o the caveat that t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant a n d must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. Wilma C o r p . 6 2080164 v. F l e m i n g Foods o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 613 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; H a n n e r s v . B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412, 413 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . " Hobson v . A m e r i c a n C a s t (Ala. Iron Pipe Co., 690 So. 2d 3 4 1 , 344 1997). Discussion On address appeal, G a r r i e makes s e v e r a l arguments. G a r r i e ' s argument t h a t h i s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s were n o t subsumed b y h i s AEMLD c l a i m . determine We first and wantonness T h a t i s , we must w h e t h e r t h e n e g l i g e n c e , w a n t o n n e s s , a n d AEMLD c l a i m s s h o u l d be e v a l u a t e d as s e p a r a t e c l a i m s o r w h e t h e r t h e y should be noted, evaluated as a s i n g l e c l a i m u n d e r t h e AEMLD. As Summit a s s e r t e d i n i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n t h a t G a r r i e ' s negligence claim. were a n d w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m s were subsumed b y h i s AEMLD In arguing that the negligence subsumed by t h e AEMLD claim, and wantonness Summit cites claims Veal v. T e l e f l e x , I n c . , 586 So. 2d 188 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a n d f e d e r a l cases. However, & Co. i n Vesta Construction, addressed Veal Fire Insurance 901 So. 2d 84 Corp. ( A l a . 2004), v. o u r supreme and e x p l a i n e d t h a t n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s a r e n o t subsumed b y an AEMLD c l a i m . stated: 7 Milam court and wantonness The supreme c o u r t 2080164 "With r e s p e c t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n that the p l a i n t i f f s ' negligence and b r e a c h - o f w a r r a n t y c l a i m s were subsumed b y t h e i r AEMLD c l a i m s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n m i g h t have b e e n s u p p o r t a b l e u n d e r V e a l v. T e l e f l e x , I n c . , 586 So. 2d 188 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , a c a s e t h a t d i s c u s s e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which t h e s t r i c t - l i a b i l i t y d o c t r i n e o f t h e AEMLD m i g h t be v i e w e d a s i m p u t i n g n e g l i g e n c e t o a defendant as a matter o f law. 6 "More r e c e n t l y , h o w e v e r , a n d a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t f o r [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] , t h i s C o u r t specifically addressed the question whether a n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m i s subsumed i n a AEMLD c l a i m i n T i l l m a n v. R . J . R e y n o l d s T o b a c c o Co., 871 So. 2d 28, 34-35 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) : " ' I t must be remembered, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e AEMLD, as e s t a b l i s h e d i n C a s r e l l [ v . A l t e c I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 335 So. 2d 128 (Ala. 1976),] and A t k i n s [v. American M o t o r s C o r p . , 335 So. 2d 134 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) ] , i s "an e x a m p l e o f j u d i c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , " not of l e g i s l a t i v e enactment. Keck v. D r y v i t S y s . , I n c . , 830 So. 2d 1, 8 ( A l a . 2002). T h i s Court warned l a s t year i n Keck that " [ j ] u d i c i a l decision-making should not be s e e n as t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o l e g i s l a t e . " 830 So. 2d a t 8. A l a b a m a remains a common-law s t a t e , a n d t h e r e f o r e common-law t o r t a c t i o n s " s o f a r as [ t h e y a r e ] n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , laws and i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h i s s t a t e .. . s h a l l c o n t i n u e i n f o r c e , e x c e p t as f r o m t i m e t o t i m e ... may be a l t e r e d o r r e p e a l e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e § 1-3-1, A l a . Code 1975. We will n o t presume t o so d e f i n e t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e j u d i c i a l l y c r e a t e d AEMLD so t h a t i t subsumes t h e common-law t o r t actions of negligence and wantonness against the r e t a i l e r defendants.' 8 2080164 " A f t e r V e a l , a number o f c a s e s held that n e g l i g e n c e a n d w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m s were subsumed b y an AEMLD c l a i m . S e e , e . g . , B r o c k v. B a x t e r H e a l t h c a r e C o r p . , 96 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (S.D. A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d J o h n s o n v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 82 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . However, a number o f o t h e r c a s e s either r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e i s s u e had n o t been f i n a l l y d e c i d e d , s e e G r i m e s v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 205 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (M.D. A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , o r p e r m i t t e d n e g l i g e n c e a n d AEMLD c l a i m s t o c o e x i s t u n d e r c e r t a i n circumstances. See, e.g., F l a g s t a r E n t e r s . , I n c . v. D a v i s , 709 So. 2d 1132 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . " 6 Vesta Fire negligence Ins., 901 So. 2d a t 101-02. and wantonness claims were Therefore, Garrie's n o t subsumed b y h i s AEMLD c l a i m . We n e x t address G a r r i e ' s arguments c o n c e r n i n g h i s claim u n d e r t h e AEMLD. "The e l e m e n t s o f an AEMLD c l a i m a r e as f o l l o w s : "'"'To e s t a b l i s h must show: liability, a plaintiff "'"'(1) he s u f f e r e d i n j u r y o r damage[] to himself or h i s property b y one who s e l l s a product i n a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n unreasonably dangerous to the p l a i n t i f f as t h e u l t i m a t e u s e r o r consumer, i f "'"'(a) the seller engaged i n the business s e l l i n g such a p r o d u c t , and 9 i s of 2080164 "'"'(b) i t i s expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h i t [was] s o l d . ' " "'Yamaha M o t o r Co. v. T h o r n t o n , 579 So. 2d 619, 621 ( A l a . 1991) ( q u o t i n g C a s r e l l v. A l t e c I n d u s . , I n c . , 335 So. 2d 128, 132-33 (Ala. 1976)).'" T a n k s l e y v. P r o S o f t A u t o m a t i o n , I n c . , 982 So. 2d 1046, ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g K i r k v. G a r r e t t F o r d T r a c t o r , So. 866 2d 865, 1049-50 Inc., 650 (Ala. 1994)). "In an AEMLD a c t i o n , 'the p l a i n t i f f must a f f i r m a t i v e l y show t h a t t h e p r o d u c t was s o l d w i t h a d e f e c t o r i n a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n . ' J o r d a n v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 581 So. 2d 835, 836-37 ( A l a . 1991). 'Without e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p r o d u c t was d e f e c t i v e a n d / o r u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s when i t l e f t t h e hands o f t h e s e l l e r , t h e b u r d e n i s n o t s u s t a i n e d . ' J o r d a n , 581 So. 2d a t 837. ' P r o o f o f an a c c i d e n t and i n j u r y i s n o t i n i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e AEMLD; a d e f e c t i n t h e p r o d u c t must be affirmatively shown.' Townsend v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 642 So. 2d 411, 415 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " Tanksley, 982 Garrie So. 2d a t supported judgment motion with, 1051. his response among o t h e r to Summit's things, R o g e r E. D a v i s , a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r . the summary- affidavit Davis t e s t i f i e d of that t h e t r e e s t a n d i s d e f e c t i v e and u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s i n two respects: (1) i t i s not equipped 10 w i t h a body h a r n e s s , but 2080164 i n s t e a d i s e q u i p p e d o n l y w i t h a s a f e t y b e l t ; a n d (2) t h e f o o t straps prevent of the tree stand are not designed the platform of the tree stand the hunter's feet. Davis to adequately from d i s l o d g i n g from testified: "The c l i m b i n g t r e e s t a n d i n v o l v e d i n Mr. G a r r i e ' s i n j u r y was m a n u f a c t u r e d ... w i t h a body b e l t . A body b e l t i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d a b o d y p o s i t i o n i n g and fall r e s t r a i n t device, r a t h e r than a fall protection device. Body h a r n e s s e s a r e g e n e r a l l y considered f a l l protection devices. Body h a r n e s s e s were i n common u s e a t t h e t i m e t h e s u b j e c t t r e e c l i m b i n g s t a n d was m a n u f a c t u r e d a n d s o l d . "... I t i s my o p i n i o n t h a t t h e u s e r o f a V i p e r t r e e stand i s n o t adequately p r o t e c t e d from a f a l l when u s i n g t h e b o d y b e l t p r o v i d e d . The m a n u f a c t u r e r s h o u l d have e q u i p p e d t h e t r e e s t a n d w i t h a body harness, a t minimum, a n d i t s f a i l u r e t o do so renders t h i s product d e f e c t i v e and u n r e a s o n a b l y dangerous. "... I t i s my o p i n i o n t h a t t h e d e s i g n o f t h e means o f a t t a c h m e n t f o r t h e [ p l a t f o r m ] p o r t i o n o f the t r e e stand i s n o t adequate t o r e l i a b l y prevent the [platform] from dislodging, causing the [ p l a t f o r m ] t o f a l l t o t h e end o f i t s t e t h e r . When the user attempts t o r e t r i e v e and r e p o s i t i o n t h e [platform] after i t dislodges, he assumes an u n b a l a n c e d p o s i t i o n w h i c h may l e a d t o a f a l l o f t h e u s e r . A r e d e s i g n o f t h e means o f a t t a c h m e n t o f t h e [ p l a t f o r m ] w o u l d more l i k e l y t h a n n o t have p r e v e n t e d this accident. "... I t i s my o p i n i o n t h a t t h e s u b j e c t V i p e r Tree Stand was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous, because o f i t s design, i n c l u d i n g those d e f e c t s o u t l i n e d above a n d i t s f a i l u r e t o incorporate reasonably safe a l t e r n a t i v e 11 2080164 d e s i g n s as o u t l i n e d a b o v e . "... My opinion, which i s based upon a reasonable degree of e n g i n e e r i n g c e r t a i n t y , i s t h a t the d e f e c t i v e design o f t h e s u b j e c t V i p e r t r e e stand was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f Mr. G a r r i e ' s accident, and t h a t t h i s a c c i d e n t c o u l d have b e e n p r e v e n t e d b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d e s i g n s as s e t f o r t h above." Our supreme c o u r t h a s s t a t e d : "In order t o prove that a product i s d e f e c t i v e f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e AEMLD, a p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e that "'"a safer, practical, a l t e r n a t i v e d e s i g n was a v a i l a b l e to the manufacturer a t the time i t manufactured the [product]. The existence of a safer, practical, alternative design must be p r o v e d b y s h o w i n g t h a t : " ' " ( a ) The p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries w o u l d have been e l i m i n a t e d o r i n some way r e d u c e d b y u s e o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d e s i g n ; and t h a t "'"(b) t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u c h f a c t o r s as t h e i n t e n d e d u s e of the [product], i t s s t y l i n g , cost, and desirability, i t s s a f e t y aspects, the f o r e s e e a b i l i t y of the p a r t i c u l a r accident, the likelihood of injury, and the probable seriousness of the i n j u r y i f that accident occurred, the o b v i o u s n e s s o f t h e d e f e c t , and the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the defect, the u t i l i t y 12 2080164 of the alternative outweighed the utility design a c t u a l l y used."' design of the "Beech v. O u t b o a r d M a r i n e C o r p . , 584 So. 2d 447, 450 (Ala. 1991) q u o t i n g G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . v. Edwards, 482 So. 2d 1176, 1191 (Ala. 1985), o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , S c h w a r t z v. V o l v o N o r t h A m e r i c a C o r p . , 554 So. 2d 927 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " Hannah v. (Ala. Gregg, 2002) Bland (emphasis & Berry, straps "redesign" provided of the 840 So. alternative detail tree stand, or e x p l a n a t i o n design. 839, the a l l e g e d d e f e c t i v e n e s s Davis testified w o u l d have l i k e l y p r e v e n t e d G a r r i e ' s no 2d 858 omitted). In t h i s case, r e g a r d i n g foot Inc., Regarding fall, about a s a f e r , both the of the that a but he practical, allegations that Summit s h o u l d have e q u i p p e d t h e t r e e s t a n d w i t h a body h a r n e s s and t h a t the evidence f o o t s t r a p s were d e f e c t i v e , G a r r i e p r e s e n t e d indicating alternative designs a c t u a l l y used. that the outweighed Accordingly, utility the of utility any of the no specific designs as Summit a r g u e d i n i t s summary- judgment m o t i o n , G a r r i e d i d not o f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e of a safer, practical, AEMLD. See id. a l t e r n a t i v e design Therefore, the trial as r e q u i r e d u n d e r court d i d not e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Summit as t o 13 err the in Garrie's 2080164 AEMLD c l a i m . 2d 478, See Y a r b r o u g h v . S e a r s , Roebuck & Co., 628 So. 482 ( A l a . 1993) ( a f f i r m i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s on an AEMLD c l a i m when t h e p l a i n t i f f to present safer, practical, We n e x t a d d r e s s t h e summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on G a r r i e ' s alternative negligence substantial evidence of a failed design). claims. judgment m o t i o n As n o t e d , Summit a s s e r t e d that Garrie's negligence i n i t s summary- claims are barred b e c a u s e , Summit s a i d , G a r r i e was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law. G a r r i e a r g u e s t h a t Summit d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . "'Contributory negligence i s an a f f i r m a t i v e a n d c o m p l e t e d e f e n s e t o a c l a i m b a s e d on n e g l i g e n c e . I n order t o e s t a b l i s h contributory negligence, the defendant bears the burden of p r o v i n g that the plaintiff 1) h a d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e dangerous c o n d i t i o n ; 2) h a d an a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e d a n g e r under t h e surrounding circumstances; a n d 3) f a i l e d to e x e r c i s e reasonable care, by p l a c i n g h i m s e l f i n t h e way o f d a n g e r . See K n i g h t v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 580 So. 2d 576 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' " Serio v. M e r r e l l , (quoting (Ala. I n c . , 941 So. 2d R i d g e w a y v . CSX T r a n s p . , 960, 964 Inc., (Ala. 2006) 723 So. 2d 600, 606 1998)). "A p l a i n t i f f c a n n o t r e c o v e r in a negligence a c t i o n where t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s own n e g l i g e n c e i s shown t o have p r o x i m a t e l y contributed t o h i s damage, 14 2080164 n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a s h o w i n g o f n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of the defendant. Likewise, a plaintiff's c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e w i l l p r e c l u d e r e c o v e r y i n an AEMLD action. The question of contributory n e g l i g e n c e i s n o r m a l l y one f o r t h e j u r y . However, where t h e f a c t s a r e s u c h t h a t a l l r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n s must reach the same conclusion, contributory n e g l i g e n c e may be f o u n d as a m a t t e r o f l a w . "To e s t a b l i s h contributory negligence as a matter of law, a defendant seeking a summary j u d g m e n t must show t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f p u t h i m s e l f i n d a n g e r ' s way and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had a c o n s c i o u s appreciation of the danger at the moment the incident occurred. The proof required for e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e as a m a t t e r o f law s h o u l d be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m an i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n t o a j u r y when d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p l a i n t i f f has b e e n g u i l t y o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . A jury d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p l a i n t i f f has b e e n g u i l t y o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e must d e c i d e o n l y w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d to e x e r c i s e reasonable care. We p r o t e c t a g a i n s t t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e use o f a summary j u d g m e n t t o e s t a b l i s h c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e as a m a t t e r o f law by r e q u i r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t on s u c h a motion to e s t a b l i s h by undisputed evidence a p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n s c i o u s a p p r e c i a t i o n of danger." Hannah, 840 So. 2d a t 860-61 (citations Summit c o n t e n d s t h a t G a r r i e was omitted). contributorily by f a i l i n g t o wear t h e s a f e t y b e l t as he c l i m b e d from which he contributorily consciously fell. Garrie negligent appreciate the contends because, he 15 down t h e tree that he was not says, he did not d a n g e r p o s e d by t r e e w i t h o u t u s i n g the s a f e t y b e l t . negligent c l i m b i n g down In h i s d e p o s i t i o n , the Garrie 2080164 testified: "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r Summit:] What u n d e r s t a n d [ t h e s a f e t y b e l t ] t o be f o r ? "A. I t was a s a f e t y d i d you device. "Q. I n c a s e y o u f e l l , t o t h e ground? "A. A n d i t came w i t h falling Yeah. "Q. t o keep y o u f r o m "A. "Q. intended "A. your stand? [Yes]. You u n d e r s t o o d t h a t f o r your s a f e t y ? [ t h e s a f e t y b e l t ] was Yeah. "Q. D i d you u n d e r s t a n d t h a t y o u s h o u l d when y o u ' r e c l i m b i n g t h e t r e e ? use i t "A. W e l l , y o u c o u l d n ' t use i t c l i m b i n g t h e tree. You c o u l d n ' t u s e i t c l i m b i n g , p e r i o d . I t wasn't d e s i g n e d f o r t h a t . " "Q. A n d d i d y o u [use t h e s a f e t y b e l t d u r i n g t h e f i r s t two h u n t i n g seasons t h a t you had t h e t r e e stand]? "A. Yeah, I u s e d i t "Q. Until you d e c i d e d t o s t o p using i t ? "A. Yeah. P e o p l e [were] g e t t i n g s m o t h e r e d t o d e a t h a n d hung w i t h [ t h e s a f e t y b e l t s ] . 16 2080164 "Q. Do you know o f anyone who was i n j u r e d u s i n g [safety belt]? a "A. N o t p e r s o n a l l y . B u t , you know, news a n d people t a l k i n g [W]e t h o u g h t i t was s a f e r without i t . TT-;4-T^^-.-.4- - ; 4 - "Q. I f y o u h a d h a d y o u r f a l l p r o t e c t i o n a r o u n d y o u r c h e s t a n d t i e d t o t h e t r e e , w o u l d you have f a l l e n t o t h e ground? the "A. No. B u t I [ w o u l d have] b e e n h a n g i n g stand. "Q. W e l l , we d o n ' t know t h a t , do we? "A. T h a t was my t h e o r y , "Q. You w o u l d n ' t have f a l l e n , under anyway. w o u l d you? "A. I w o u l d [ n ' t ] have h a d i t t i e d o f f b e c a u s e you c a n ' t t i e i t o f f t h e t r e e . I f I h a d h a d i t on, i t w o u l d n ' t have b e e n t i e d c o m i n g down." Garrie's testimony indicates that he b e l i e v e d c o u l d n o t u s e t h e s a f e t y b e l t a s he c l i m b e d with the tree stand. that the safety climbing. the safety stationary while belt Garrie's belt That i s , G a r r i e ' s not capable up o r down a t r e e s u b j e c t i v e b e l i e f was of being used t e s t i m o n y s u g g e s t s t h a t he b e l i e v e d could i n the tree climbing was t h a t he be used stand only when and t h a t u s i n g that a h u n t e r was the safety was n o t a v i a b l e s a f e t y o p t i o n . 17 while belt Viewing the 2080164 e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o G a r r i e , t h e nonmovant, see Hobson, 690 So. established that i n v o l v e d by not the tree 2d a t 344, Garrie cannot say t h a t the consciously wearing h i s stand. we appreciated safety belt while the climbing that Garrie was contributorily b a s e d on o u r supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n B u r l e s o n Inc., plaintiffs, 981 the So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 2007). coadministrators v. RSR Burleson Burleson when t h e hung t h e of B u r l e s o n ' s discharged the grounds The that contributorily sued designed caused the death owned t h e r e v o l v e r , w h i c h c o u l d n o t m a n u a l s a f e t y was revolver engaged. i n i t s h o l s t e r on round s t r u c k Burleson, o f t h e wound. the estate, One a gun r e v o l v e r f e l l f r o m t h e h o l s t e r , s t r u c k a d e s k , and The Group In B u r l e s o n , and m a n u f a c t u r e d a r e v o l v e r t h a t p r o x i m a t e l y discharged with negligent v a r i o u s d e f e n d a n t s , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s had of Burleson. danger 2 Summit a r g u e s Florida, evidence day, rack, negligent, had and he d i e d as a and assumed the trial the risk court as the discharged. result d e f e n d a n t s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t Burleson be and entered on was a T h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no document c o n t a i n i n g d i r e c t i o n s f o r u s i n g the t r e e stand, d i r e c t i o n s w h i c h may have c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d how t h e s a f e t y b e l t was i n t e n d e d t o be u s e d . 2 18 2080164 summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e On appeal, revolver without was an prevented desk, 981 the internal i t from 2d a t 1112. Burleson's plaintiffs passive of whether the when said, device i t fell argued " i t was that designed that would and struck m a n u a l s a f e t y was the have the engaged." However, o u r supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t contributory supreme c o u r t safety discharging favor. i n Burleson d e f e c t i v e because, they regardless So. defendants' negligence barred recovery. The stated: "'Direct evidence of such an a p p r e c i a t i o n of danger i s not r e q u i r e d i f t h e e v i d e n c e a d m i t s o f no c o n c l u s i o n e x c e p t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f must have appreciated the h a z a r d i n v o l v e d . I t i s enough i f t h e plaintiff understood, or should have u n d e r s t o o d , t h e d a n g e r p o s e d . R i d g e w a y [v. CSX T r a n s p . , I n c . , 723 So. 2d 600, 606 (Ala. 1998)]. " S e r i o [v. M e r r e l l , (Ala. 2006). Inc.], 941 So. 2d [960,] 965 "... [T]he d a n g e r o f h a n d l i n g a f i r e a r m w i t h a l i v e c a r t r i d g e c h a m b e r e d i n l i n e w i t h t h e hammer and the f i r i n g p i n w i t h o u t h a v i n g f i r s t engaged the manual s a f e t y i s s e l f - e v i d e n t , e s p e c i a l l y to an e x p e r i e n c e d and safety-conscious gun owner like [ B u r l e s o n ] , so t h a t r e a s o n a b l e p e o p l e w o u l d have t o l o g i c a l l y c o n c l u d e t h a t he s h o u l d have a t l e a s t a p p r e c i a t e d the danger a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d o i n g so." 19 2080164 Burleson, 981 So. 2d a t 1113-14. B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e conclude a submitted i n this case, while descending the tree i s a self-evident d a n g e r o f w h i c h he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n aware. undisputed accidentally In t h i s case, a hunter the belt that Burleson's discharged Davis, not engaged. testified M o r e o v e r , b a s e d on G a r r i e ' s c o u l d e v e n be u s e d w h i l e case, have that p r o t e c t e d f r o m a f a l l when u s i n g a p p e a r s t o be a q u e s t i o n i n this would had t h e manual s a f e t y been " i s not adequately Therefore, revolver In Burleson, i t Garrie's expert witness, [safety] b e l t . " there cannot t h a t t h e d a n g e r i n v o l v e d i n G a r r i e ' s f a i l i n g t o wear safety belt was we testimony, r e g a r d i n g whether the s a f e t y c l i m b i n g up o r down t h e t r e e . u n l i k e the s i t u a t i o n i n Burleson, there i s a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g whether u s i n g the s a f e t y b e l t w o u l d have a d e q u a t e l y B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r o t e c t e d the user i n the record before from falling. u s , we conclude t h a t G a r r i e ' s f a i l u r e t o wear t h e p r o v i d e d s a f e t y b e l t i s n o t the s o r t of s e l f - e v i d e n t danger, t h a t w o u l d make h i m c o n t r i b u t o r i l y law f o r not wearing like t h e one i n B u r l e s o n , n e g l i g e n t as a m a t t e r the safety b e l t . Accordingly, of because G a r r i e d i d n o t c o n s c i o u s l y a p p r e c i a t e t h e danger posed by n o t 20 2080164 w e a r i n g t h e s a f e t y b e l t , see Hannah, 840 b e c a u s e t h a t d a n g e r was w h i c h he should 1113-14, we negligent as a m a t t e r o f On say application for evidence submitted essential by that Garrie's rehearing, negligence two Garrie was claims. So. 2d argues claims. court that and that Garrie was Therefore, should on affirm the i n Summit's f a v o r with respect to c l a i m s were subsumed by contributorily on the only the negligent. Typically, " [ a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] w i l l a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t on any v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d p r e s e n t e d by t h e record, r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d was c o n s i d e r e d , o r e v e n i f i t was r e j e c t e d , by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e R y a l s , 773 So. 2d 1011 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c i t i n g Ex parte Wiginton, 743 So. 2d 1071 ( A l a . 1999), and S m i t h v. E q u i f a x S e r v s . , I n c . , 537 So. 2d 463 ( A l a . 1988). T h i s r u l e f a i l s i n a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y where d u e - p r o c e s s c o n s t r a i n t s r e q u i r e some n o t i c e a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , w h i c h was o m i t t e d , o f t h e b a s i s t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e s u p p o r t an a f f i r m a n c e , s u c h as when a t o t a l l y omitted a f f i r m a t i v e defense might, i f 21 the to e s t a b l i s h c l a i m s , Summit moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on claim at contributorily insufficient However, grounds: t h a t the n e g l i g e n c e AEMLD 981 was Summit summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d negligence and law. elements of h i s negligence court's Burleson, Garrie t h a t b a s i s , Summit a r g u e s t h a t t h i s trial 2d a t 860-61, not the type of s e l f - e v i d e n t danger of have b e e n aware, see cannot So. 2080164 available f o r consideration, suffice to affirm a j u d g m e n t , A m e r i q u e s t M o r t g a g e Co. v. B e n t l e y , 851 So. 2d 458 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , o r where a summary-judgment movant h a s n o t a s s e r t e d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a f a i l u r e o f t h e nonmovant's e v i d e n c e on an e l e m e n t o f a c l a i m o r defense and t h e r e f o r e has n o t s h i f t e d t h e burden o f p r o d u c i n g s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n support o f t h a t e l e m e n t , R e c t o r v . B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 So. 2d 75, 80 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g C e l o t e x C o r p . v. C a t r e t t , 477 U.S. 317, 3 2 3 , 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L . E d . 2d 265 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , a n d Kennedy v . W e s t e r n S i z z l i n C o r p . , 857 So. 2d 71 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . " Liberty N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y Servs. Found. (emphasis P.C., 881 So. 2d o f Alabama 1013, 1020 ( A l a . 2003) added). B e c a u s e Summit d i d n o t move f o r a summary judgment ground t h a t essential not of court's ground elements of h i s n e g l i g e n c e claims, see, judgment elements substantial T h e r e f o r e , we that Garrie's t h e burden d i d evidence i n support cannot affirm the t r i a l on t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s on t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h of those claims. Liberty Nat'l, supra; e . g . , W i l s o n v . C - S h a r p e Co. [Ms. 2080460, September 25, 2009] So. 3d Garrie's claim elements. summary essential on t h e G a r r i e ' s e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h shift to Garrie to offer those Health , negligence claims and because Summit ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . were was 22 Because n o t subsumed b y h i s AEMLD not e n t i t l e d to a summary 2080164 judgment on the contributorily negligence negligence, claims we must on the conclude ground that the of trial c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o negligence We court claims. next address G a r r i e ' s wantonness c l a i m s . has defined some a c t o r t h e existing to result.'" omission do and an 603 ( A l a . 1994) trial So. court 2d of the injury will 1289, 1292 by omission. by Summit that would A c c o r d i n g l y , he has or South, 646 represent judgment a the or So. 2d Ins. In a r g u i n g summary of probably Southland N a t ' l w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m s , G a r r i e does n o t i d e n t i f y any conduct doing from doing likely (Ala. 1991)). entering supreme knowing of that, C e n t r a l Bank o f t h e S t o n e v. Our conscious conscious (quoting erred "'as some d u t y , w h i l e being act, Bozeman v. C o r p . , 589 the "wantonness" conditions omitting 601, the that on the allegation wanton act not e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the of or trial c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g summary j u d g m e n t as t o t h e w a n t o n n e s s claims. See S e r i o v. M e r r e l l , Inc., 941 So. 2d a t 966. G a r r i e a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t on his claim alleging breach warranty of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y because, G a r r i e says, 23 of implied Summit d i d 2080164 n o t move f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h a t c l a i m . 3 Initially, we n o t e t h a t Summit moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on " a l l c l a i m s . " However, Summit d i d n o t a p p e a r t o a s s e r t s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s f o r a summary judgment warranty claim. with respect to the breach-of-implied- A s s u m i n g , as G a r r i e a r g u e s , t h a t Summit d i d n o t p r o p e r l y move f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e c l a i m alleging breach of implied warranty, the p r o p r i e t y of the t r i a l entry o f a summary j u d g m e n t on t h a t preserved f o r our review. of a summary claim judgment as t o t h e t o Employees c l a i m was n o t p r o p e r l y Garrie d i d not object to the entry i n a postjudgment motion. analogous breach-of-implied-warranty Accordingly, o f t h e Montgomery D e p a r t m e n t v. M a r s h a l l , County individual court Marshall capacity. Sheriff's Sheriff moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n h i s o f f i c i a l Sheriff case i s s u e d S h e r i f f D.T. M a r s h a l l i n b o t h h i s o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . of this 893 So. 2d 326 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . In M a r s h a l l , t h e p l a i n t i f f s However, t h e t r i a l court's entered i n both Marshall capacity only. a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r his official The p l a i n t i f f s then capacity appealed and h i s to the G a r r i e does n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t on h i s c l a i m a l l e g i n g b r e a c h o f express warranty. 3 24 2080164 supreme c o u r t . W i t h r e s p e c t of Sheriff court Marshall t o t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r i n his individual c a p a c i t y , t h e supreme stated: "Since the s h e r i f f ' s motion d i d not challenge the p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t the s h e r i f f i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , t h e m o t i o n d i d n o t meet t h e i n i t i a l burden of the s h e r i f f i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , t h a t i s , '"the burden of p r o d u c t i o n , i . e . , t h e b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o summary j u d g m e n t . " ' Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 769 So. 2d 903, 909 ( A l a . 1999) ( q u o t i n g B e r n e r v . C a l d w e l l , 543 So. 2 d 686, 691 ( A l a . 1989) ( H o u s t o n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ) . However, t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us does n o t r e v e a l whether the p l a i n t i f f s o b j e c t e d t o the t r i a l c o u r t i n a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o l i m i t t h e summary j u d g m e n t t o t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e sheriff i n his official c a p a c i t y , see Hatch v. H e a l t h - M o r , I n c . , 686 So. 2d 1132, 1132 ( A l a . 1996) ( ' [ I ] t was e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o a l l o f [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c l a i m s , b e c a u s e one c l a i m ... was n o t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ' ) , a n d Henson v. M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y A s s ' n , 646 So. 2d 559, 562 ( A l a . 1994) ('[W]e o b s e r v e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y e n t e r t h e summary judgment as t o a l l o f [the p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c l a i m s . C o u n t s one a n d two ... were n o t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e [ d e f e n d a n t ' s ] m o t i o n ' ) . Such a R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n w o u l d have b e e n n e c e s s a r y t o p r e s e r v e s u c h an o b j e c t i o n f o r an a p p e a l 'because t h i s i s s u e [did] n o t i n v o l v e a q u e s t i o n o f law t h a t ha[d] been the s u b j e c t o f a p r e v i o u s o b j e c t i o n and r u l i n g . ' M c K e n z i e v. K i l l i a n , 887 So. 2d 861, 865 ( A l a . 200 4)." 893 So. 2d a t 330-31 ( f i n a l e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 25 Accordingly, i n 2080164 this case, because G a r r i e d i d not o b j e c t t o t h e e n t r y o f t h e summary judgment on t h e c l a i m alleging breach of implied w a r r a n t y b y a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , he d i d n o t p r e s e r v e the issue of the propriety of that r u l i n g We reverse the t r i a l respect t o Garrie's negligence Regarding entered a l l other claims, court's f o r our review. summary judgment with c l a i m s , a n d we remand t h e c a s e . we a f f i r m t h e summary judgment i n f a v o r o f Summit. APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION OF AUGUST 2 1 , 2009, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t writing. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s t o g r a n t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g b u t d i s s e n t s as t o t h e o p i n i o n , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 26

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.