178 So. 3d 834
Ala.2015Background
- City crew (including Christopher Wilson) was directing traffic around a stranded knuckle‑boom truck on Sullivan Road; Christopher was not wearing a reflective vest and warning devices were not set at the scene.
- Frank Lemley, driving home after a long shift, topped a rise, encountered Christopher signaling traffic, applied brakes but struck and killed him; investigators estimated Lemley’s braking created skid marks consistent with ~40 mph.
- Eyewitness and police testimony conflicted over Lemley’s speed, whether lights/flashers were on, and whether Lemley was wearing corrective lenses at impact.
- Jury returned a verdict for Lemley; the trial court later granted a new trial as against the great weight of the evidence.
- The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial and ultimately reversed, ordering reinstatement of the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson) | Defendant's Argument (Lemley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in granting new trial for verdict against the great weight of evidence | Verdict against great preponderance; evidence supported negligence/wantonness and new trial appropriate | Jury verdict was supported by conflicting evidence; trial court exceeded discretion in ordering new trial | Reversed: trial court abused discretion; reinstate jury verdict |
| Whether Lemley was negligent/proximate cause (speeding) | Lemley’s speed caused inability to stop; Trooper Larimer attributed crash to speeding | Conflicting evidence (skid marks, average local speeds, lack of lights, braking testimony) could support finding no proximate causation by Lemley | Court: jury reasonably could find Lemley not negligent based on conflicts; proximate‑cause finding for defense permissible |
| Whether Christopher was contributorily negligent | N/A (plaintiff argued defendant responsible) | Christopher stepped into roadway without vest/signs and thus could be contributorily negligent | Court: evidence would support a jury finding of contributory negligence; jury could resolve in favor of Lemley |
| Whether Lemley acted wantonly | Plaintiff emphasized medical conditions, long hours, speed, and lack of glasses as evidence of wantonness | Defendant showed conflicting evidence on vision, speed context, and standard driving in area | Court: jury could find no wantonness; evidence conflicted so verdict for Lemley sustainable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jawad v. Granade, 497 So.2d 471 (Ala. 1986) (standard for reviewing new‑trial orders based on weight of the evidence)
- Alpine Bay Resorts, Inc. v. Wyatt, 539 So.2d 160 (Ala. 1988) (procedure and presumption favoring jury verdict when evidence meets sufficiency test)
- Richardson v. Joines, 574 So.2d 787 (Ala. 1991) (discussion of limits on trial court discretion to grant new trial)
- Odom v. Schofield, 480 So.2d 1217 (Ala. 1985) (exceeding speed limit alone does not establish negligence absent proximate‑cause showing)
- Thetford v. City of Clanton, 605 So.2d 835 (Ala. 1992) (definition of proximate cause)
- Buchanan v. Merger Enterprises, Inc., 463 So.2d 121 (Ala. 1984) (concurrent causes and proximate causation principles)
- Martin v. Arnold, 643 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1994) (elements of negligence and wantonness)