Case ID: so2d_627/html/0864-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ADAMS, Justice. ALMON, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Debby H. TANNER and David G. Tanner v. BRIGHAM-WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; Sandra L. Eichelberger; and Thomas H. Brigham.
    1911593.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    March 26, 1993.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1993.
    Julia Smeds Stewart, Birmingham, for appellants.
    William D. Motley, Jr. and Connie Shaw Granata of Porterfield, Harper & Mills, P.A., Birmingham, for appellees.
   ADAMS, Justice.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded on the authority of Bell v. Colony Apartments Co., Ltd., 568 So.2d 805 (Ala.1990). See also Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

ALMON and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent.

ALMON, Justice

(dissenting).

I think the trial court properly entered the summary judgment for the defendants in this case. This is not a situation in which the defendant should be held liable for the criminal act of a third party. See, e.g., Moye v. A.G. Gaston Motels, Inc., 499 So.2d 1368 (Ala.1986); Stripling v. Armbrester, 451 So.2d 789 (Ala.1984); and Parham v. Taylor, 402 So.2d 884 (Ala.1981). Moreover, the evidence concerning the alleged disappearance of the jewelry was speculative and conjectural. Under these circumstances, the summary judgment for the defendants was proper.