Mary Nell Phillips v. James Travis Seward and Heartland Express, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/25/2010 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 , A l a b a m a 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1081226 Mary N e l l Phillips v. James T r a v i s Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s , I n c . Appeal STUART, the Court Justice. Mary Travis from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t (CV-06-699) Nell Phillips sued commercial truck Seward a n d h i s e m p l o y e r , H e a r t l a n d Houston automobile Circuit accident Court after Express, s h e was i n v o l v i n g her vehicle driver James Inc., i n injured i n an a n d an 1 8 - w h e e l 1081226 t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r r i g d r i v e n by Seward. Following a jury the j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f Seward and Express. denied The trial j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r trial court Phillips's Heartland motion We for a o f l a w o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r a new and e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . appeals. trial, r e v e r s e and Phillips remand. I. On November Caravan minivan 17, 2004, Phillips was on Ross C l a r k C i r c l e Dothan when she e n t e r e d a dedicated driving on the north right-turn lane was n o t g o v e r n e d by t h e t r a f f i c the t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l sign. As P h i l l i p s signal spot approximately break i n t r a f f i c even w i t h the y i e l d on t h e Montgomery directing lane Montgomery in Phillips was Highway; stopped she s t o p p e d sign to wait at a for a once she made t h e t u r n . i n continued Highway f o r some p e r i o d b e f o r e north on the requiring vehicles i t to t u r n r i g h t , but P h i l l i p s s t a t e d at t r i a l 2 a yield Highway so she c o u l d merge i n t o the northbound lane to her l e f t The to turn d e v i c e f o r t h a t l a n e was came t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , of That r i g h t - t r a f f i c c r o s s i n g o r t u r n i n g l e f t o n t o t h e Montgomery rather, Dodge side lane r i g h t and t r a v e l n o r t h on t h e Montgomery Highway. turn her t h a t she d i d 1081226 not proceed i n the lane b e c a u s e she " w a s n ' t g o i n g to turn right." Seward behind was traveling Phillips Montgomery that and s t o p p e d same to wait route when he pulled f o r her to enter the Highway so t h a t he c o u l d t h e n do l i k e w i s e . q u e s t i o n e d by P h i l l i p s ' s attorney at t r i a l , When Seward d e s c r i b e d t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t h a p p e n e d n e x t as f o l l o w s : "Q: Tell us how t h i s a c c i d e n t happened. " A : We were s t o p p e d i n t h e t u r n l a n e . Ms. P h i l l i p s pulled forward. I l e t o f f my c l u t c h , moved forward. She s t o p p e d . I c o u l d n ' t stop i n time t o keep f r o m bumping h e r . " Seward f u r t h e r was looking testified t h a t he was u n s u r e e x a c t l y where he i n t h e moments immediately when he l o o k e d b a c k and saw P h i l l i p s "Q: the accident had s t o p p e d : Okay. Now, you t o l d us t h a t you f e l t l i k e t h a t you h a d been s t o p p e d , and t h e n you l o o k e d up, and t h e n she h a d s t o p p e d , and t h e n t h a t ' s when you h i t h e r ? " A : We were "Q: before stopped. B u t a g a i n , you d o n ' t know where you were l o o k i n g j u s t b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t , do y o u ? " A : We were s t o p p e d . I f you want me t o s a y e x a c t l y what I was l o o k i n g a t a t t h a t moment, I c a n ' t be a c c u r a t e a b o u t t h a t . 3 1081226 "Q: You a g r e e Correct? that Ms. Phillips was stopped. "A: Y e s . "Q: And when y o u h i t h e r , she was stopped? "A: Yes, "Q: Okay. And now, why i s i t t h a t y o u d i d n o t see her stopped? "A: When I saw h e r s t o p p e d , r e a c t , so I bumped h e r . "Q: I s t h a t because somewhere? "A: W e l l , as I s a i d , I c a n ' t be a c c u r a t e i n what I was l o o k i n g a t a t t h a t moment. "Q: That's f i n e . B u t a t t h e t i m e you l o o k e d up -¬ when you l o o k e d b a c k , she was s t o p p e d ? "A: Yes, "Q: Okay. you? "A: No, s i r . "Q: You d o n ' t have any c r i t i c i s m o f Ms. "A: No, s i r . No, s i r . Not a t a l l . " The police sir. you i t was had been too l a t e looking to off sir. And you d o n ' t officer who fault her f o r t h i s , responded to do Phillips? the accident t e s t i f i e d t h a t Seward t o l d h i m he was m o v i n g a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e m i l e s an h o u r a t t h e t i m e o f i m p a c t and i n t h e o f f i c e r ' s estimation that "would p r o b a b l y be p r e t t y c l o s e . " 4 Phillips 1081226 t e s t i f i e d t h a t she n e v e r saw Seward, b u t she was adamant t h a t she n e v e r moved f o r w a r d or took her foot o f f the brake a f t e r she came t o h e r i n i t i a l stop described the accident even w i t h the y i e l d sign. She as f o l l o w s a t t r i a l : "Well, the t r a f f i c was real heavy that a f t e r n o o n , and I was s i t t i n g t h e r e w a i t i n g f o r t h e t r a f f i c t h a t was h e a d e d up n o r t h o f f o f [Ross C l a r k ] Circle. And I had been s i t t i n g t h e r e p r o b a b l y a c o u p l e o f m i n u t e s , b e c a u s e i t was r e a l h e a v y . And I had p u l l e d my sun v i s o r down, b e c a u s e I was h e a d e d t o w a r d t h e s u n . And j u s t , s u d d e n l y , t h i s i m p a c t h i t me, and I was t h r o w n f o r w a r d . And, you know, a s e a t b e l t , I g u e s s , i s d e s i g n e d t o c a t c h you and h o l d you. So i t t i g h t e n e d up a r o u n d me. And my h e a d h i t t h e sun v i s o r . And p o s s i b l y , i t m i g h t have even h i t t h e m e t a l a c r o s s t h e t o p o f t h e c a r , b e c a u s e I'm a t a l l l a d y , you know. B u t I d i d have a h e a d i n j u r y . In f a c t , I almost l o s t consciousness." F o l l o w i n g t h e a c c i d e n t , P h i l l i p s ' s g r a n d s o n was c a l l e d t o t h e s c e n e , and he t o o k h e r t o t h e h o s p i t a l . Phillips complained o f head and n e c k p a i n , and X - r a y s were t a k e n , b u t no f r a c t u r e s were revealed, and P h i l l i p s f o l l o w i n g the accident, was Phillips released. experienced In the period b r u i s i n g on h e r abdomen where t h e s e a t b e l t had c a u g h t h e r , and an e s c h a r , patch o f dead s k i n t i s s u e , d e v e l o p e d blister subsequently physician advised developed there was a s u p e r f i c i a l 5 i n t h e same a r e a . as well, which s e a t - b e l t burn. or A her 1081226 On November 8, 2006, P h i l l i p s s u e d Seward and Heartland E x p r e s s i n the Houston C i r c u i t C o u r t , a l l e g i n g n e g l i g e n c e seeking damages f o r t h e i n j u r i e s she in the November concluded and proceeded argued to that pretrial trial in accident, as the well she placed i n her accident on April 15, a a l l e g e d , was and Seward's jarred subsequently actions 1 case Phillips caused the accident, immediately from 1999 after the colon her and became of p r o l e n e procedure by the enmeshed Seward and H e a r t l a n d up to the n e g l i g e n t ; t h e y a r g u e d t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t was P h i l l i p s ' s negligence. the was d e v e l o p u n t i l J u l y 2007, loose leading discovery trial, c a u s e d when a p i e c e was suffered At running abdomen i n a J u l y hernia had had resolved, 2009. treated fistula After were negligence l e a d i n g t o an i n f e c t i o n . that motions injuries as accident. s t o m a c h t h a t d i d not which, incisional 2004, Seward's resulting e x i t i n g her 17, a l l e g e d she and to mesh treat an of the impact in but her colon, Express denied accident were i n s t e a d c a u s e d by They a l s o s u b m i t t e d t e s t i m o n y f r o m an 'A " f i s t u l a " has been d e f i n e d as "'an a b n o r m a l p a s s a g e l e a d i n g f r o m an a b s c e s s o r h o l l o w o r g a n t o t h e body s u r f a c e o r f r o m one h o l l o w o r g a n t o a n o t h e r and p e r m i t t i n g p a s s a g e o f f l u i d s or s e c r e t i o n s . ' " O r g e r o n v. L o u i s i a n a Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 1 So. 3d 576, 582 n. 6 ( L a . C t . App. 2008 ) ( q u o t i n g W e b s t e r ' s C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y ( 1 0 t h ed. 1 9 9 7 ) ) . 6 1081226 expert indicating Phillips's After moved that c o l o n was u n r e l a t e d the p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r a judgment negligence the erosion conclude that Phillips o f l a w on t h e i s s u e s that t h a t w o u l d l e a d any f a c t The t r i a l court denied of " [ t ] h e r e has been no [ t h e a c c i d e n t ] was a n y t h i n g o f Mr. Seward." into accident. of a l l the evidence, arguing evidence at a l l presented mesh to the automobile as a m a t t e r and l i a b i l i t y , of the prolene finder to other than the f a u l t the motion, and t h e c a s e was t h e n s u b m i t t e d to the j u r y , which u l t i m a t e l y returned a of Express. verdict Phillips's matter in favor postjudgment Seward motion and Heartland requesting of a law o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , a judgment a new as a trial, was s u b s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d , on June 12, 2009, she filed her t i m e l y notice of appeal to t h i s Court. II. On appeal, Phillips first argues that the t r i a l court e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o e n t e r a judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w i n h e r favor this on t h e i s s u e s of negligence and l i a b i l i t y . argument p u r s u a n t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g standard We of review review: "When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a [judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w ] , t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d the t r i a l c o u r t used i n i t i a l l y i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r deny t h e m o t i o n f o r a 7 1081226 [judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w ] . Palm H a r b o r Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1997). Regarding q u e s t i o n s of f a c t , the u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e nonmovant has p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . C a r t e r v. H e n d e r s o n , 598 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1 992). The nonmovant must have p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n o r d e r t o w i t h s t a n d a m o t i o n f o r a [judgment as a m a t t e r o f law]. See § 12-21-12, A l a . Code 1975 ; 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 , 87 1 ( A l a . 1989) . A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has p r o d u c e d 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 a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y . C a r t e r , 598 So. 2d a t 1353. In r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a [judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w ] , t h i s C o u r t v i e w s 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 t h e nonmovant and entertains such r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have been f r e e t o draw. I d . " j_ Waddell So. _ _ i II & Reed, I n c . v. U n i t e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e 2d 1143, 1152 In her b r i e f , was -r _ i entitled I n s . Co., 875 ( A l a . 2003). Phillips s u m m a r i z e s h e r argument t h a t t o a judgment as a m a t t e r o f law as follows: "The e v i d e n c e t h a t Seward n e g l i g e n t l y c a u s e d t h e a c c i d e n t was u n d i s p u t e d a t t r i a l . Seward t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e a s o n a b l e t h i n g f o r him t o have done was t o o p e r a t e h i s v e h i c l e so as t o a v o i d h i t t i n g t h e v e h i c l e o p e r a t e d by P h i l l i p s , t h a t he d i d h i t t h e v e h i c l e o p e r a t e d by P h i l l i p s f r o m b e h i n d , t h a t he had no c r i t i c i s m s o f P h i l l i p s and t h a t he d i d n o t f a u l t h e r f o r t h e a c c i d e n t . Seward f a i l e d t o keep a proper l o o k o u t , was not p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n to t r a f f i c , was f o l l o w i n g t o o c l o s e l y and d r o v e an e i g h t e e n - w h e e l e r i n t o t h e r e a r o f a v e h i c l e whose d r i v e r was p r o p e r l y and l a w f u l l y s t o p p e d . " 8 she 1081226 (Phillips's brief, pp. 27-28.) c o u n t e r by a r g u i n g t h a t a judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w was n o t appropriate presented because, at trial they Seward and H e a r t l a n d argue, indicating substantial (1) that Express evidence Seward was was not n e g l i g e n t , t h a t i s , t h a t he a c t e d as a r e a s o n a b l e d r i v e r u n d e r the circumstances, and (2) t h a t Phillips acted unreasonably u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and was t h u s c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . We first consider the evidence regarding Seward's alleged negligence. At trial, Phillips Clark that the undisputed stopped her v e h i c l e Circle to turn north evidence indicated: (1) i n the r i g h t - t u r n lane o n t o t h e Montgomery that on Ross Highway; (2) Seward s t o p p e d h i s v e h i c l e b e h i n d h e r v e h i c l e ; and (3) t h a t Seward s u b s e q u e n t l y s t r u c k t h e r e a r o f P h i l l i p s ' s v e h i c l e with the front of h i s v e h i c l e . I n Harshaw v. Nationwide M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Co., 834 So. 2d 762, 765 ( A l a . 2002), a case also stated i n v o l v i n g a rear-end collision, we that, under Alabama l a w , s u c h e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a facie case of negligence: "[The a p p e l l a n t ] o f f e r e d u n r e f u t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t [ t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t ] was a t f a u l t , t h a t i s , t h a t he was negligent. First, she p r o v e d , without d i s p u t e , t h a t [ t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t ] had d r i v e n 9 1081226 h i s v e h i c l e i n t o t h e r e a r o f h e r v e h i c l e , w h i c h was l a w f u l l y stopped. I n so p r o v i n g , she e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t [ t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t ] was p r i m a f a c i e g u i l t y o f n e g l i g e n c e . See G r i b b l e v . Cox, 349 So. 2d 1141, 1144 ( A l a . 1977) ('the r u l e i n A l a b a m a ' i s t h a t 'one who d r i v e s h i s a u t o i n t o t h e r e a r o f a n o t h e r who i s stopped i n obedience to a t r a f f i c l i g h t i s prima f a c i e g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e ' ) . " However, as we also noted i n Harshaw, present evidence to rebut the p l a i n t i f f ' s 834 So. 2d a t 765. they d i d i n f a c t "the defendant prima facie Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s rebut P h i l l i p s ' s evidence may case." argue that i n a s m u c h as t h e y p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , a f t e r coming t o a s t o p a t the y i e l d sign, Phillips s t a r t e d t o move h e r v e h i c l e forward and t h e n s t o p p e d , l e a v i n g Seward w i t h no t i m e t o b r a k e b e f o r e he r a n i n t o her v e h i c l e . 2 They a c c o r d i n g l y argue that "the j u r y was e n t i t l e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t Seward r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d t h a t P h i l l i p s w o u l d c o n t i n u e m o v i n g i n t h e merge l a n e when he observed acted also." h e r moving forward reasonably i n l e t t i n g (Brief We a g r e e . i n the turn l a n e , and t h a t o f f h i s brakes t o move he forward o f Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s , pp. 27-28.) Fair-minded persons i n the exercise of i m p a r t i a l ^ A l t h o u g h P h i l l i p s d i s p u t e s Seward's a l l e g a t i o n t h a t she began t o move f o r w a r d a f t e r she s t o p p e d i n i t i a l l y and t h e n s t o p p e d a g a i n , o u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w r e q u i r e s us t o a c c e p t Seward's a l l e g a t i o n as t r u e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s . W a d d e l l & Reed, I n c . , 875 So. 2d a t 1152. 10 1081226 judgment c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was b e g i n m o v i n g f o r w a r d when he West v. Founders 870, 871 such weight Life that P h i l l i p s Assurance exercise of of impartial existence of the f a c t f a i r - m i n d e d persons judgment sought 547 so. 2d that of F l o r i d a , doing So. quality Co. was ("[S]ubstantial evidence i s evidence ( A l a . 1989) and saw r e a s o n a b l e f o r Seward t o can t o be reasonably proved."). in the infer the Accordingly, b e c a u s e Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e which the j u r y leading to could reasonably i n f e r the rear-end r e a s o n a b l e , the t r i a l motion f o r a judgment 420 ( A l a . 1995) Seward's with as a matter of law actions Phillips c o u r t d i d not e r r i n d e n y i n g n e g l i g e n c e and l i a b i l i t y . 2d collision that from on were Phillips's the issues See a l s o J o n e s v. B a l t a z a r , 658 (holding conclude t h a t the defendant that had the jury was entitled a c t e d as a r e a s o n a b l e of So. to person u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and was a c c o r d i n g l y n o t n e g l i g e n t even though she had rear-ended the p l a i n t i f f ' s stopped vehicle). III. In the event t h i s Court determined judgment as Phillips has a matter of a l s o argued law was t h a t she 11 not t h a t her motion erroneously is entitled for a denied, t o a new trial 1081226 for the f o l l o w i n g reasons: (1) t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was t h e g r e a t w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e and was p l a i n l y and against palpably wrong; (2) t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t were sufficiently erroneous prejudicial exceeded and and/or misleading reversible error; i t s discretion and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s ' s by and as (3) a l l o w i n g the to the constitute trial testimony e x p e r t w i t n e s s , who of court Seward t e s t i f i e d t h a t the a c c i d e n t c o u l d not have c a u s e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a f i s t u l a i n P h i l l i p s ' s abdomen n e a r l y t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r the a c c i d e n t . We a g r e e t h a t t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t were e r r o n e o u s and p r e j u d i c i a l , s p e c i f i c a l l y i n a s m u c h as t h e court as charged Accordingly, the we consideration of jury consider to only Phillips's contributory that other argument trial negligence. and pretermit arguments seeking a new Heartland Express failed trial. Phillips to was present s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t the a c c i d e n t i n which injured negligence charging a r g u e s t h a t Seward and was and the at that j u r y on least the partly trial the court result her own erred by I n George H. accordingly contributory negligence. 12 of she 1081226 L a n i e r M e m o r i a l H o s p i t a l v. A n d r e w s , 809 2 0 0 1 ) , we So. 2d 802, 806 (Ala. stated: "Under A l a b a m a l a w , '"[a] p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o proper jury instructions regarding the issues p r e s e n t e d , and an i n c o r r e c t o r m i s l e a d i n g c h a r g e may be t h e b a s i s f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f a new trial."' K i n g v. W.A. Brown & Sons, I n c . , 585 So. 2d 10, 12 ( A l a . 1991) (citation omitted). When an o b j e c t i o n t o a j u r y c h a r g e has been p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d f o r r e v i e w on a p p e a l , as t h i s one was, we ' " l o o k t o t h e e n t i r e t y o f t h e [ j u r y ] c h a r g e t o see i f t h e r e was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , " ' and r e v e r s a l i s w a r r a n t e d only i f the e r r o r i s p r e j u d i c i a l . K i n g , 585 So. 2d a t 12." It is undisputed that Phillips properly objected to the challenged jury i n s t r u c t i o n regarding contributory negligence and that must she preserved determine that whether, evidence that Phillips justify the giving contributory The in was of fact, in there some way the plaintiff's own contributed to on substantial negligent challenged we so as instruction to on negligence. cannot negligence therefore, was d o c t r i n e of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e plaintiff Wiggly issue f o r appeal; recover a is shown negligence his damage, the p a r t Stores, in 454 negligence to defendant." 2d 13 1370, suit have notwithstanding of the So. provides 1372 that "a where proximately a showing of Brown v. P i g g l y (Ala. 1984). 1081226 Contributory and it negligence Heartland Express accordingly at t r i a l . Serio (Ala. 2006). i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , and Seward v . M e r r e l l , I n c . , 941 So. 2d 960 , 964 Seward and H e a r t l a n d t h e i r b u r d e n by s u b m i t t i n g stopped her v e h i c l e forward, and t h e n merge l a n e brake disagree evidence i n d i c a t i n g that stopped i t even sign, into this evidence t o move i t there was an open Seward w i t h the rear Phillips started though of h e r , l e a v i n g running that E x p r e s s a r g u e t h a t t h e y met at the y i e l d i n front before bore the burden of p r o v i n g no t i m e t o of her v e h i c l e . indicates that Phillips We was negligent. It vehicle i s undisputed would eventually Phillips that a required t o merge north the lane t r a v e l i n g when vehicles d i d not intend attempting continue be that she made i n i t to to turn left i n which into right, heavy fair-minded person the r i g h t turn right, and t h a t traffic on t h e Montgomery Highway. Phillips's We i n the exercise turn that she was so she could cannot agree of impartial judgment c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e t h a t a d r i v e r a t t e m p t i n g t o merge i n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s a c t e d u n r e a s o n a b l y o r n e g l i g e n t l y m e r e l y by b e g i n n i n g t o move f o r w a r d a f t e r she h a d s t o p p e d and 14 1081226 then restopping. C e r t a i n l y , Seward Phillips acted driving at t r i a l , for unreasonably; Phillips Accordingly, was contributorily evidence court contributory negligence. remedied only criticism that of her Seward and s u b s t a n t i a l evidence that In the absence of Phillips was erred charging by T h a t e r r o r was by g r a n t i n g that t h a t he d i d n o t f a u l t h e r negligent. that the t r i a l negligent, no we c o n c l u d e Express f a i l e d to present substantial be had and he t e s t i f i e d the accident. Heartland he d i d not b e l i e v e in some manner the j u r y on p r e j u d i c i a l and c a n Phillips's motion for a new trial. IV. Because jury could there have was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence reasonably concluded that l e a d i n g t o t h e a c c i d e n t were r e a s o n a b l e , not e r r i n denying matter o f l a w on Phillips's the issues motion from which the Seward's the t r i a l actions court d i d f o r a judgment of negligence and as a liability. However, b e c a u s e t h e r e was n o t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t was t o some e x t e n t negligence negligence, c a u s e d by P h i l l i p s ' s own so as t o j u s t i f y a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n on c o n t r i b u t o r y the t r i a l c o u r t d i d e r r by so c h a r g i n g 15 the j u r y . 1081226 Accordingly, t h e judgment e n t e r e d on t h e j u r y ' s r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e i s remanded f o r a new verdict i s trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Lyons, S m i t h , P a r k e r , and Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l and M u r d o c k , J J . , result. 16 concur i n the 1081226 WOODALL, J u s t i c e I erred concur by Although (concurring i n the r e s u l t ) . i n the r e s u l t . charging James I agree the j u r y Travis on Seward they reasonable j u r o r could conclude that the t r i a l contributory and H e a r t l a n d argue t h a t a sudden s t o p "presented that sufficient negligence. Express, I n c . , evidence from which a [Mary N e l l ] P h i l l i p s made t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t o cause t h e a c c i d e n t , " o f Seward and H e a r t l a n d , sudden other stop" or that brief a t 38 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , my r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t P h i l l i p s a court she was p o s s i b l y respect. Cobb, C . J . , c o n c u r s . 17 negligent "made i n some

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.