Bonnie Fay Malone v. Jackie Bailey Noblitt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/10/10 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090362 Bonnie Fay Malone v. Jackie Bailey N o b l i t t Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-08-900187) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Bonnie Fay Malone, summary judgment thep l a i n t i f f i n favor B a i l e y N o b l i t t . We a f f i r m . below, o f t h e defendant appeals from a below, Jackie 2090362 Facts On J a n u a r y 23, 2008, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y was d r i v i n g h i s a u t o m o b i l e 72"), crossed lanes separated t h e median automobile into Noblitt w e s t on U.S. H i g h w a y 72 ("Highway a f o u r - l a n e highway w i t h eastbound 4:45 a.m., two w e s t b o u n d by a median, the eastbound o c c u p i e d by Malone. lanes a n d two when h i s a u t o m o b i l e lanes a n d s t r u c k an A l v i n Ray P o e , a w i t n e s s was d r i v i n g w e s t on H i g h w a y 72 a p p r o x i m a t e l y one-eighth who of a m i l e b e h i n d N o b l i t t , t e s t i f i e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he f i r s t observed Noblitt's automobile well o f f the shoulder of the westbound l a n e s near a fence and t h a t "[s]uddenly [ N o b l i t t ' s automobile] veered across b o t h w e s t b o u n d l a n e s i n t o t h e m e d i a n a n d was j u m p i n g a r o u n d i n t h e m e d i a n . Then [ N o b l i t t ] came b a c k a c r o s s t h e w e s t b o u n d l a n e s a n d he d r o p p e d down t o a low p l a c e . He went o u t o f s i g h t . "Then I saw h i m g o i n g up t h e h i l l on t h e o t h e r s i d e . He s u d d e n l y v e e r e d b a c k a c r o s s b o t h l a n e s , a c r o s s t h e median, a c r o s s t h e eastbound l a n e s i n t o the s h o u l d e r , back o u t i n t o t h e eastbound l a n e s and p r o c e e d e d w e s t i n t h e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s . By t h a t t i m e I h a d g o t t e n up a l i t t l e c l o s e r . I was s t i l l i n t h e w e s t b o u n d l a n e . He was i n t h e e a s t b o u n d l a n e . " I d i d n ' t a c t u a l l y s e e . I knew t h e r e was some i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h a v e h i c l e , I t h i n k he s i d e s w i p e d i t . Then I saw v e h i c l e s l e a v i n g t h e l i g h t a t C o u n t y L i n e Road a n d t h e y h i t h e a d - o n . I t h i n k t h e y were both i n the i n s i d e l a n e . " 2 2090362 Poe further testified that he stopped, telephoned e m e r g e n c y 911 t o r e p o r t t h e a c c i d e n t , a n d went t o c h e c k on t h e people involved i n the c o l l i s i o n . first g o t t o t h e scene o f t h e c o l l i s i o n , on a woman who was c o m p l a i n i n g to Poe t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he he s t o p p e d t o c h e c k o f p a i n , w h i l e a n o t h e r man went c h e c k on N o b l i t t . The o t h e r man t o l d P o e t h a t he c o u l d n o t c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h N o b l i t t , who "was j u s t s i t t i n g t h e r e " i n h i s automobile. After an ambulance a r r i v e d , Poe went N o b l i t t ' s a u t o m o b i l e a n d N o b l i t t "was s t i l l wasn't s a y i n g anything." and t h e man rejoined Thereafter, on Poe t h e n l e f t who had first over s i t t i n g t h e r e and N o b l i t t ' s automobile checked on Noblitt. a d e p u t y a r r i v e d , a n d Poe a n d t h e d e p u t y Noblitt. Noblitt "still wasn't to saying checked anything." Poe t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h e e r r a t i c way t h a t N o b l i t t h a d b e e n driving Noblitt immediately was before intoxicated; the c o l l i s i o n , however, " [ n ] e i t h e r the deputy [ n ] o r [ P o e ] o r t h e v e h i c l e . " Poe f u r t h e r Poe he assumed testified that c o u l d s m e l l a l c o h o l on h i m testified: "The d e p u t y h a d a f l a s h l i g h t . We b o t h l o o k e d i n t h e v e h i c l e . We l o o k e d i n t h e b a c k . I t l o o k e d l i k e egg c a r t o n s o r s o m e t h i n g b a c k t h e r e as I r e c a l l . T h e r e were no b o t t l e s , no c a n s o r a n y t h i n g i n t h e f l o o r b o a r d t h a t we saw a t t h a t t i m e . H i s window was e i t h e r down o r t h e d o o r was open, I c a n ' t r e c a l l f o r 3 that 2090362 sure, but vehicle." we couldn't smell any odors from the N o b l i t t t e s t i f i e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he had no memory of the collision. accident, he had He testified visited that, his wife, h o s p i t a l , and t h e n had gone t o b e d On shower; shaved; took his who g o t up a p r e s c r i p t i o n medication his h o u s e a t 4:30 and Deli. On a.m. t h e way, was before a 8:30 p.m. a.m.; took medicine, for high blood which pressure f o r h i g h c h o l e s t e r o l ; and left t o go t o h i s b u s i n e s s , M o n r o v i a M a r k e t he c a l l e d h i s stepson a conversation with him, and on h i s cellular telephone, had when he was p a s s i n g M a d i s o n S q u a r e M a l l on H i g h w a y 72 m i l e s b e f o r e he r e a c h e d the a patient in a t 4:00 prescription c o n s i s t e d of a p r e s c r i p t i o n medication and night at approximately t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e a c c i d e n t , he a the ended the call several J e f f Road, t h e r o a d where he t u r n s o f f o f H i g h w a y 72 t o go t o h i s b u s i n e s s . N o b l i t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he does n o t remember a n y t h i n g w i t h h i s stepson collision. The until he collision from the woke up occurred time he ended h i s i n the h o s p i t a l approximately call after three miles a f t e r N o b l i t t had p a s s e d J e f f R o a d ; N o b l i t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t did not know why the he he p a s s e d J e f f Road i n s t e a d o f t u r n i n g o n t o it. 4 2090362 N o b l i t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t d r u n k a n y a l c o h o l s i n c e 1971 a n d t h a t he h a d n e v e r prescription Dr. examined h a d an a d v e r s e reaction toh i s medication. Amrit Arora, Noblitt a board-certified neurologist i n the i n t e n s i v e - c a r e unit who of Huntsville H o s p i t a l on t h e d a y o f t h e c o l l i s i o n a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y t r e a t e d Noblitt, testified i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n as f o l l o w s : "Q. A l l r i g h t . What h i s t o r y o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g d i d y o u have r e g a r d i n g t h e r e a s o n f o r Mr. N o b l i t t b e i n g i n the h o s p i t a l and f o r you b e i n g r e q u e s t e d t o c o n s u l t w i t h him? "A. He was -- he h a d b e e n i n a m o t o r v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t w i t h an u n e x p l a i n e d p e r i o d where he was d r i v i n g f o r a f e w m i l e s , a n d due t o t h e u n e x p l a i n e d p e r i o d i n a b s e n c e o f t i m e , t h e y c a l l e d me i n t o e v a l u a t e f o r any p o t e n t i a l n e u r o l o g i c c a u s e . "Q. Was i t y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t Mr. N o b l i t t h a d gone f o r some p e r i o d o f t i m e w i t h o u t any r e c a l l o r r e c o l l e c t i o n o f the events surrounding the a c c i d e n t ? "A. Y e s . "Q. A n d t h a t t h i s h a d o c c u r r e d f o r some l e n g t h o f time p r i o r t o the time o f the a c c i d e n t ? "A. T h a t ' s c o r r e c t "Q. ... D i d you conduct an examination o f Mr. well, of a l l , Noblitt? "A. I d i d . "Q. A l l r i g h t . As a r e s u l t 5 first 2090362 w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e h i s t o r y t h a t you r e c e i v e d , d i d you have any i n d i c a t i o n w h a t s o e v e r t h a t Mr. N o b l i t t was i n t o x i c a t e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h i s a c c i d e n t ? "A. No. "Q. A l l r i g h t . D i d you have any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t he was u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f any d r u g s a t t h e t i m e o f t h i s accident t h a t would e x p l a i n h i s c o n d i t i o n ? "A. No. "Q. A l l r i g h t . As a r e s u l t o f y o u r e x a m i n a t i o n , d i d you f o r m a d i a g n o s i s o r o p i n i o n as t o what may have c a u s e d t h e e p i s o d e t h a t he d e s c r i b e d t o you? "A. We d i d . "Q. Okay. And what was "A. The most seizure. likely that opinion? diagnosis was complex partial "Q. W o u l d you p l e a s e e x p l a i n t o t h e l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y what a c o m p l e x p a r t i a l s e i z u r e is? "A. A s e i z u r e i s an e l e c t r i c a l s h o r t c i r c u i t i n t h e b r a i n . A p a r t i a l s e i z u r e i s one t h a t i n v o l v e s p a r t o f t h e b r a i n t h a t can sometimes c a u s e l o s s o f t i m e and a w a r e n e s s . "Q. A l l r i g h t . A s s u m i n g t h a t y o u r d i a g n o s i s or o p i n i o n was, i n f a c t , what o c c u r r e d , w o u l d Mr. N o b l i t t have h a d any a d v a n c e d w a r n i n g t h a t he m i g h t be a b o u t t o s u f f e r s u c h a s e i z u r e ? "A. No, he w o u l d n o t . "Q. A s s u m i n g t h a t Mr. N o b l i t t l a p s e d i n t o some l e v e l o f u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s a t t h a t t i m e , c o u l d he have done t h a t and t h e r e have been no w a r n i n g o f any symptoms, 6 2090362 and c o u l d he have done t h a t w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e t h a t c o n d i t i o n was a b o u t t o o c c u r ? "A. Yes. "Q. Mr. Okay. What t y p e o f t r e a t m e n t d i d you N o b l i t t at that time? that "A. We called started Keppra. him on an anti-seizure render medication "Q. Have you c o n t i n u e d t o see Mr. N o b l i t t s i n c e date? "A. Yes, to that I have. "Q. A r e you s t i l l c o n t i n u i n g suspected seizure condition? "A. Yes, I "Q. And "A. to treat him for a am. He i s . i s he s t i l l on m e d i c a t i o n f o r t h a t "Q. Had you e v e r s e e n Mr. t h e 2 3 r d o f 2008? N o b l i t t p r i o r to "A. purpose? I d i d not. No, I have n o t no, January "Q. Do you have any h i s t o r y w h a t s o e v e r or any i n d i c a t i o n whatsoever t h a t Mr. N o b l i t t h a d ever s u f f e r e d a c o n d i t i o n or event of t h i s type p r i o r to J a n u a r y t h e 2 3 r d o f 2008? "A. No." Procedural History On F e b r u a r y 28, 2008, M a l o n e s u e d N o b l i t t , s t a t i n g c l a i m s 7 2090362 of negligence he was and guilty affirmative wantonness. Answering, N o b l i t t denied of defense, w a n t o n b e c a u s e , he before negligence the or asserted s a i d , he collision, he l o s s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s , and that had had (Ala. 1977) he was and, as an negligent not suddenly l o s t not or consciousness done a n y t h i n g t o cause he c o u l d n o t have f o r e s e e n w o u l d l o s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s . See 1049 wantonness W a l k e r v. (recognizing that Cardwell, an that his that he So. 2d 348 involuntary and u n f o r e s e e a b l e l o s s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s c o n s t i t u t e d an a f f i r m a t i v e defense to negligence and wantonness claims based on an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t ) . On September 11, 2009, N o b l i t t moved f o r a summary supported judgment his directing on on that affirmative summary-judgment m o t i o n Poe's d e p o s i t i o n , Also based and Dr. Arora's S e p t e m b e r 11, Malone m o t i o n w i t h i n 21 to the respond his deposition, court Noblitt's entered an order summary-judgment d a y s . M a l o n e n e i t h e r moved t o s t r i k e any t h e e v i d e n c e N o b l i t t had judgment m o t i o n , nor He deposition. trial to with defense. of s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f h i s summary- s u b m i t t e d any evidence i n opposition to N o b l i t t ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n , n o r r e s p o n d e d i n any other way 2009, t o N o b l i t t ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n . On O c t o b e r 6, 8 2090362 the trial court entered an o r d e r granting Noblitt's summary- judgment m o t i o n . On O c t o b e r 16, 2009, M a l o n e , h a v i n g moved t h e t r i a l e m p l o y e d new counsel, c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f N o b l i t t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t h e r f o r m e r c o u n s e l ' s failure to f i l e a n y t h i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o N o b l i t t ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d an e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e vacating of the order motion. In affidavit support i n which granting of her with action, motion, that her p r i o r counsel be Noblitt's she a t t e s t e d t h a t contact her p r i o r counsel responding to N o b l i t t ' s that j u s t i f i e d the Malone Noblitt's court had concerning an i n close the status of her h a d i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t he w o u l d summary-judgment m o t i o n , a n d t h a t summary-judgment m o t i o n entered submitted she h a d k e p t she h a d n o t l e a r n e d t h a t h e r f o r m e r c o u n s e l to summary-judgment i t s order until granting had not responded after Noblitt's the trial summary- judgment m o t i o n . N o b l i t t r e p l i e d t o M a l o n e ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e summary j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 28, 2009. N o b l i t t a s s e r t e d t h a t M a l o n e ' s f o r m e r c o u n s e l h a d n o t r e s p o n d e d t o N o b l i t t ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e he r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n 9 2090362 was due t o be g r a n t e d and t h a t , therefore, his failure r e s p o n d d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e an e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e to that j u s t i f i e d v a c a t i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t . N o b l i t t a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d deny M a l o n e ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he s a i d , any Malone had n o t submitted evidence w i t h t h a t motion e s t a b l i s h i n g the e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact. On November 20, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g respect t o Malone's motion Following supplement the hearing, the record to vacate Malone moved include the trial documents judgment. court to that Malone's counsel had r e f e r r e d t o d u r i n g the h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g Malone's motion t o vacate to t h e summary with t h e summary j u d g m e n t . The documents i n c l u d e d N o b l i t t ' s answers t o Malone's i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , which i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r y and answer: "22. Had you taken any prescriptive or n o n - p r e s c r i p t i v e d r u g s w i t h i n t w e n t y - f o u r (24) h o u r s of the s u b j e c t c o l l i s i o n ? I f so, please i d e n t i f y the d r u g , t h e d a t e a n d t i m e t a k e n and t h e amount t a k e n . "ANSWER: L i p i t o r a n d A c c u p r i l . t o o k an Ambien o r n o t . " On November 30, 2009, t h e t r i a l I do n o t know i f I court entered an order d e n y i n g M a l o n e ' s m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t M a l o n e h a d n e i t h e r 10 2090362 directed record the trial before court the to entry e s t a b l i s h e d the e x i s t e n c e nor s u b m i t t e d any new of 2009, and appealed the evidence the summary to in judgment that the argues fact existence supreme court on of t r a n s f e r r e d the that the December appeal this 1975. trial court erred t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by N o b l i t t d i d n o t n e g a t e t h e of genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l 21, to g r a n t i n g N o b l i t t ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e , she was the fact. supreme c o u r t first was evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g the c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code Malone that of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l Malone any fact regarding says, existence whether N o b l i t t under the i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l or drugs at the time of accident because, Malone says, Noblitt did not submit r e s u l t s of l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s at the h o s p i t a l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t did n o t have a l c o h o l i n h i s b l o o d when t h e a c c i d e n t n o t know w h e t h e r he had t a k e n A m b i e n , a m e d i c a t i o n i n t e n d e d i n d u c e s l e e p , w i t h i n 24 h o u r s o f t h e a c c i d e n t ; that diagnosis" a complex p a r t i a l s e i z u r e was o f N o b l i t t ' s c o n d i t i o n when t h e 11 and Dr. "the most accident the any he occurred; N o b l i t t s t a t e d i n h i s r e s p o n s e s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t h a t he opinion in did to Arora's likely occurred 2090362 was speculative. " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de n o v o . W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h e t r i a l court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i 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 . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e 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 the nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 (Ala. 1986) . Once 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 b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact. 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 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of impartial j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the 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 . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " Dow (Ala. v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 2004). "A t r i a l c o u r t d e c i d e s a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t upon a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h a t e v e r m a t e r i a l s are s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f o r i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r any f a c t s not of j u d i c i a l n o t i c e except those f a c t s evidenced by m a t e r i a l s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c o r d upon s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . L i k e w i s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c a n n o t be r e v e r s e d on any g r o u n d o r argument n o t p r e s e n t e d f o r o r a g a i n s t t h e 12 2090362 motion. "An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r a f a c t t o s u p p o r t o r t o u n d e r m i n e a summary j u d g m e n t o n l y t o the extent t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l contains m a t e r i a l s from t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l court e v i d e n c i n g t h a t f a c t a t the time of submission of t h e m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . L i k e w i s e , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r an a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a summary j u d g m e n t o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c o r d p r e s e n t i n g t h a t argument t o t h e t r i a l court before or a t the time of submission of t h e m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . " Ex p a r t e R y a l s , and 773 So. 2d 1011, 1013 ( A l a . 2000) o r i g i n a l emphasis o m i t t e d ; (citations emphasis added). We c a n n o t c o n s i d e r a n y o f M a l o n e ' s a r g u m e n t s c h a l l e n g i n g the summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e y trial court before or summary-judgment m o t i o n . 1013 were n o t p r e s e n t e d a t the time of See Ex p a r t e submission Ryals, to the of the 773 So. 2d a t ("[T]he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r an a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a summary j u d g m e n t o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t presenting time of t h a t argument t o t h e t r i a l submission of the motion court before f o r summary ( c i t a t i o n and o r i g i n a l emphasis o m i t t e d ; M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f we c o u l d merit. Noblitt's testimony consider emphasis record or at the judgment." added)). them, t h e y have no t h a t he h a d no r e c o l l e c t i o n 13 of 2090362 anything stepson between the time he terminated several miles before the his call with his and the accident occurred t i m e he woke up i n t h e h o s p i t a l ; h i s t e s t i m o n y d e n y i n g t h a t he had consumed a l c o h o l s i n c e 1971; d r u g s he h a d t a k e n t h e day h i s testimony t h a t the o f t h e a c c i d e n t were p r e s c r i p t i o n medications f o r h i g h b l o o d p r e s s u r e and h i g h c h o l e s t e r o l t h a t he never had Poe's t e s t i m o n y had any that, adverse after r e a c t i o n s to those t h e a c c i d e n t , he that, after the i n d i c a t i o n t h a t N o b l i t t was drugs; and Noblitt's a c c i d e n t , he d i d not and drugs; d i d not any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t N o b l i t t had consumed a l c o h o l ; Dr. testimony only detect Arora's detect any under the i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l or testimony t h a t he had never suffered a s i m i l a r l o s s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s o r a w a r e n e s s b e f o r e he s u f f e r e d such a loss immediately b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t , and the absence o f any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t N o b l i t t s u f f e r e d a h e a d i n j u r y in the a c c i d e n t t h a t w o u l d have c a u s e d amnesia, constituted s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o p r o v e t h a t N o b l i t t s u f f e r e d an involuntary awareness and unforeseeable immediately Founders L i f e Assurance (Ala. 1989) before Co. loss the consciousness accident, of F l o r i d a , ( " [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence 14 of 547 is So. see 2d evidence or West v. 870, 871 of such 2090362 w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can fact sought Malone to existence to be r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the proved."), produce which substantial existence s h i f t e d the evidence of of the burden establishing to the of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t w i t h r e s p e c t to w h e t h e r N o b l i t t s u f f e r e d an i n v o l u n t a r y and u n f o r e s e e a b l e l o s s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s o r a w a r e n e s s . See Party, So. prima 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 fact, burden 2d at then 1038 shifts ("Once t h e v. A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c movant makes a the 897 Dow to the nonmovant ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e to produce of a genuine issue o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . " ) . Thus, N o b l i t t made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g of h i s a f f i r m a t i v e defense w i t h o u t s u b m i t t i n g laboratory his blood t e s t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he and w i t h o u t r e l y i n g on c o m p l e x p a r t i a l s e i z u r e was of consciousness or which Malone an her only i n t e r r o g a t o r y answer t o the accident, met The Noblitt's taken have a l c o h o l Arora's opinion that had r e s u l t s of in that a t h e most l i k e l y c a u s e o f h i s l o s s awareness. asserts Dr. submitted know w h e t h e r he she d i d not the burden of submitted a f t e r the 24 Malone production e f f e c t t h a t he Ambien w i t h i n 15 evidence hours is did not of the summary-judgment 2090362 m o t i o n had already been t i m e l y took the not submitted before or Even i f that at the evidence time the trial summary-judgment m o t i o n u n d e r s u b m i s s i o n , have e s t a b l i s h e d respect a genuine t o w h e t h e r N o b l i t t was when t h e accident t h a t i t was was been g r a n t e d . that accident occurred issue of material under the court i t would fact influence because i t d i d not had with of drugs tend to prove more p r o b a b l e t h a t N o b l i t t t o o k an Ambien t h a n i t he d i d not and, take an therefore, Ambien w i t h i n i t did not 24 hours constitute of the substantial e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t N o b l i t t had t a k e n an Ambien w i t h i n hours of the a c c i d e n t . of F l o r i d a , 547 So. See West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e 2d at e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and 871 ("[S]ubstantial q u a l i t y that evidence fair-minded of the f a c t s o u g h t t o be motion to v a c a t e the her f i r s t counsel failed to constituted vacating of to summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , she the extraordinary the summary-judgment circumstances summary j u d g m e n t . F i r s t , 16 the court erred i n denying says, f a i l e d t o a t t e n d Dr. A r o r a ' s d e p o s i t i o n respond is proved."). Malone a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l her Co. persons i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r existence 24 motion, justifying we cannot and which the consider 2090362 Malone's argument counsel's insofar alleged failure as to i t is attend based Dr. on her Arora's former deposition b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t she p r e s e n t e d that argument t o the trial Co., 612 410 So. 2d arguments 409, raised court. See ( A l a . 1992) f o r the Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l ("This C o u r t c a n n o t first time on appeal; consider rather, our r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments by i n Malone's argument the trial insofar as c o u r t . " ) . We i t i s based f i n d no m e r i t on her former counsel's considered failure to r e s p o n d t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e M a l o n e made no showing that she genuine issue of responded to the For of the the could have e s t a b l i s h e d material fact existence former attorney of a had summary-judgment m o t i o n . reasons discussed trial i f her the a b o v e , we a f f i r m the judgment court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, 17 Thomas, and Moore, JJ.,

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.