Case Title: Tutor v. Sines, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1210037

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2023-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: February 17, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 
Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
 
OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023 
 
_________________________ 
 
1210037 
_________________________ 
 
Jessica Renee Tutor 
 
v.  
 
Jack Sines and Devan Frazier 
 
 
 
Appeal from Russell Circuit Court 
(CV-18-900230) 
 
MITCHELL, Justice. 
 
Jessica Renee Tutor was driving three passengers in her 
automobile when she hit another vehicle head-on.  Two of the passengers, 
1210037 
2 
 
Jack Sines and Devan Frazier, were injured and later sued Tutor in the 
Russell Circuit Court.  The case went to trial solely on Sines's and 
Frazier's claims of wantonness, and the jury found in their favor.  The 
trial court then entered judgment against Tutor.  She appealed.  We now 
affirm. 
 Facts and Procedural History 
One clear Sunday afternoon, Tutor began driving three passengers 
in her car from her home in Fort Mitchell, Alabama, to Columbus, 
Georgia.  Her passengers were Sines and Frazier ("the plaintiffs") and 
Brendan Caulder, who is not a party to this suit.  After leaving her house, 
Tutor eventually turned north onto Highway 165, which had one 
northbound lane and two southbound lanes.  The northbound and 
southbound lanes were separated by double lines.  The northbound lane 
proceeded over a hill that obscured a church on the west side of the road 
and, at the bottom of the hill, a railroad crossing.  Tutor was driving over 
the speed limit, despite requests from her passengers to slow down.   
As she was approaching the crest of the hill, Tutor saw another 
northbound car in front of her, driven by Shane Argo.  Sines asked Tutor 
to change the song playing in the car, at which point Tutor took her eyes 
1210037 
3 
 
off the road and began to use her mobile phone, which was controlling 
the music.  Caulder, seated behind the front passenger seat, saw that 
Tutor was looking down at her phone and shouted at her to slow down.  
She looked up and saw that she was about to rear-end Argo's car, which 
had slowed to a halt behind another car that was turning left into the 
church parking lot.  Tutor turned sharply to the left and glanced the 
bumper of Argo's car before careening into the southbound lanes.  She 
collided head-on with another vehicle, injuring the plaintiffs. 
The plaintiffs sued Tutor for negligence and wantonness.  Tutor 
moved for summary judgment.  Citing Alabama's guest-passenger 
statute, § 32-1-2, Ala. Code 1975, which bars negligence but not 
wantonness claims in certain circumstances, the trial court granted the 
motion with respect to the negligence claims but denied it as to the 
wantonness claims.   
The parties then went to trial solely on the plaintiffs' claims of 
wantonness.  At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case-in-chief, Tutor 
moved for judgment as a matter of law, and the trial court denied the 
motion.  She again moved for judgment as a matter of law at the 
conclusion of all the evidence before the case was submitted to the jury, 
1210037 
4 
 
and the trial court again denied her motion.  The jury returned a verdict 
in favor of the plaintiffs and against Tutor, awarding Sines $500,000 and 
Frazier $100.  Tutor then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a 
matter of law, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to submit the 
claims to the jury.  The trial court denied the motion and entered 
judgment against Tutor.  She timely appealed.  
Standard of Review 
We review de novo a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment as 
a matter of law to determine "'"whether there was substantial evidence, 
when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, to 
produce a factual conflict warranting jury consideration."'"  Protective 
Life Ins. Co. v. Apex Parks Grp., LLC, 322 So. 3d 1027, 1038-39 (Ala. 
2020) (citations omitted).  "[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence of such 
weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial 
judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be 
proved."  West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 
871 (Ala. 1989); see also § 12-21-12(d), Ala. Code 1975.  
 
 
1210037 
5 
 
Analysis 
 
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs presented 
substantial evidence that Tutor was driving wantonly at the time of the 
collision.  We agree with the trial court that evidence of Tutor's 
wantonness was substantial, and thus the issue was properly submitted 
to the jury.  
 
"'"'Wantonness is not merely a higher degree of culpability than 
negligence.  Negligence and wantonness, plainly and simply, are 
qualitatively different tort concepts of actionable culpability.'"'"  Ex 
parte Essary, 992 So. 2d 5, 9 (Ala. 2007) (citations omitted).   Wantonness 
is "[c]onduct which is carried on with a reckless or conscious disregard of 
the rights or safety of others."  § 6-11-20(b)(3), Ala. Code 1975.  It requires 
"'the conscious doing of some act or the omission of some duty while 
knowing of the existing conditions and being conscious that, from doing 
or omitting to do an act, injury will likely or probably result.'"  Lands v. 
Ward, 349 So. 3d 219, 229 (Ala. 2021) (quoting Essary, 992 So. 2d at 9). 
 
"Absent some evidence of impaired judgment, such as from the 
consumption of alcohol, we do not expect an individual to engage in self-
destructive behavior."  Essary, 992 So. 2d at 12.  But some acts are "so 
1210037 
6 
 
inherently reckless that we might otherwise impute to [the defendant] a 
depravity consistent with disregard of instincts of safety and self-
preservation."  Id.  That is, when a defendant's allegedly wanton conduct 
toward others would also endanger the defendant, the evidence must 
support finding that the defendant's wantonness extended to her own 
safety.  Id.   
The record before us contains substantial evidence from which the 
jury could have found that Tutor acted wantonly by (1) intentionally 
violating the speed limit (2) while actively engaging with her mobile 
phone while driving (3) with knowledge that her actions constituted a 
risk of probable harm to herself and her passengers.  We address below 
the evidence that supports this finding.  
A. Substantial Evidence of Speeding 
In an automobile accident, "while speed alone does not amount to 
wantonness, speed, coupled with other circumstances, may amount to 
wantonness."  Hicks v. Dunn, 819 So. 2d 22, 24 (Ala. 2001).  In Hicks, this 
Court found substantial evidence of wantonness on facts similar to those 
here.  Id.  Dunn, the defendant in Hicks, had crested a hill while driving 
and saw the Hickses' vehicle stopped and waiting to turn into a 
1210037 
7 
 
restaurant 100 feet or less in front of him.  Id. at 23.  Dunn applied his 
brakes, but, he testified, when he saw the Hickses' vehicle, it was too late 
to stop.  Id.  His truck struck the Hickses' vehicle, injuring them.  Id.  The 
Hickses sued, and the trial court entered judgment as a matter of law on 
their wantonness claim. 
The Hicks Court found that several pieces of evidence entitled the 
jury to find that Dunn had acted wantonly.  Id. at 25.  First, Dunn was 
traveling at a speed somewhere between the speed limit of 40 and 65 
miles per hour.  Id. at 23.  Second, Dunn testified that he did not notice 
the functioning blinker and brake lights on the Hickses' vehicle.  Id.  
Third, construction signs were posted along the road leading up to the 
restaurant, and there was evidence that the road was in a "residential-
type area."  Id.  Finally, Dunn knew that the restaurant was there and 
that it was a popular place for lunch.  Id.  From this evidence, the Court 
reasoned that "the jury could have found that Dunn was driving much 
faster than the posted speed limit and that he was not paying attention 
to the road."  Id. at 25.  The evidence likewise would have supported a 
finding that "he did not slow his speed despite the construction signs and 
his knowledge that a restaurant into which patrons would likely be 
1210037 
8 
 
turning was on the other side of the hill he was cresting, obscured from 
his view."  Id.  This Court concluded that "[t]hese facts could have 
supported a verdict that Dunn had acted with a 'reckless or conscious 
disregard of the rights or safety of others,'" and thus reversed the trial 
court's decision entering judgment as a matter of law.  Id. 
As in Hicks, the record here contains substantial evidence that 
Tutor was driving faster than the speed limit.  Four witnesses testified 
that Tutor was driving in excess of the speed limit, and there was no 
evidence to the contrary; the witnesses disagreed only over the extent of 
her speeding.  Tutor testified that she was driving three miles per hour 
over the speed limit.  Caulder testified in his deposition, which was read 
into evidence, that Tutor was driving 10 to 15 miles per hour over the 
speed limit based on his view of the speedometer at the time.  Frazier, 
who was seated directly behind Tutor, estimated that she was speeding 
by around five miles per hour, based not on his view of the speedometer 
but on his felt sense of her speed.  Finally, Argo testified that she was 
driving at least 10 miles per hour over the limit.  The jury could have 
reasonably found Caulder's testimony to be the most credible because, 
other than Tutor's, it was the only eyewitness testimony about the 
1210037 
9 
 
speedometer, and the jury would have been justified in discounting 
Tutor's testimony as self-serving.  The jury could have thus reasonably 
concluded that Tutor was speeding by as much as 15 miles per hour.  
Tutor argues that Argo's and Caulder's testimony about her speed 
is "speculative and may not serve as substantial evidence."  Tutor's brief 
at 55.  She asks this Court to discount their testimony entirely, stating 
that it "may not be relied upon in support of any claim of wanton 
conduct."  Id. at 57.  According to Tutor, Argo's testimony was not 
substantial evidence of her speed because he acknowledged that his 
estimate was solely "based on the impact he felt," even though he "had 
never been involved in an automobile collision before."  Id.  And, she 
argues, because Frazier stated in his deposition that Caulder was 
"possibly" on drugs -- which Frazier admitted he said only because he 
"didn't know [Caulder] very well" -- Caulder's testimony was too 
speculative to be substantial.  Id. at 20, 57.  Thus, Tutor concludes, Argo's 
and Caulder's testimony as to speed should be disregarded.  
To bolster her argument, Tutor cites this Court's decision in Tolbert 
v. Tolbert, 903 So. 3d 103 (Ala. 2004).  Tolbert involved a wantonness 
claim that arose after the defendant driver lost control of her car on a 
1210037 
10 
 
rain-slicked "S" curve and slid into oncoming traffic.  Id. at 105.  A 
witness testified that the defendant was "probably going 60 miles per 
hour" when her car skidded into view, id. at 118, but he "could not say 
whether [the defendant's] car was already 'skidding when it came around 
through there so fast.'"  Id. at 117.  Rather, he "knew that 'generally when 
a car goes into a skid it speeds up.'"  Id. at 117-18.  This Court held that 
"[t]hese qualified opinions" -- which were the only evidence offered as to 
the defendant's speed -- "would not constitute substantial evidence that 
[the defendant] was in fact exceeding the speed limit immediately before 
she lost control of her vehicle and went into a spin."  Id. at 118.  
Tutor's reliance on Tolbert is misplaced.  Unlike the witness's 
testimony in Tolbert, which did not address whether the defendant was 
speeding while she was in control of the vehicle, Argo's and Tutor's 
testimony clearly indicated that Tutor was speeding while she was in 
control.  In characterizing witness testimony as insubstantial merely 
because she believes the witness is not credible, Tutor confuses the roles 
of judge and jury -- at a jury trial, the witness's credibility is precisely the 
kind of question the jury must resolve.  Therefore, the trial court did not 
1210037 
11 
 
err in allowing evidence of Tutor's speed -- including the testimony of 
Argo and Caulder -- to be put before the jury. 
B. Substantial Evidence of Active Phone Use 
Substantial evidence also supports a finding that, while speeding, 
Tutor consciously took her eyes from the road to actively engage with her 
mobile phone.  Caulder testified that Tutor was looking down at her 
phone as she was cresting the hill at the time of impact.  Frazier likewise 
testified that Tutor was holding and looking down at her phone at the 
time of the collision.  Tutor stated that, as she was approaching the crest 
of the hill, she saw that she was driving behind a car, took her eyes off 
the road to look down to pause a song on her phone, hit a button on the 
radio, then looked up to find that the car in front of her had stopped or 
was stopping.  Tutor said that she moved the phone from her lap to her 
cupholder at some point "a few seconds before the wreck."  But she also 
conceded that she was looking at her phone "right before impact."   
Tutor argues that she is due judgment as a matter of law because 
it is not wanton to be "momentarily distracted while travelling above the 
posted speed limit."  Tutor's brief at 47.  She says that the distraction 
caused by using her phone could also have arisen from "simply pushing 
1210037 
12 
 
a button to change a radio station, looking down in a cupholder to pick 
up a drink, looking at a billboard on the side of the road, taking one's eyes 
off the road to look at a passenger while speaking to them or a host of 
other acts."  Id.  Tutor correctly notes that this Court has declined to find 
substantial evidence of wantonness merely on the ground of distracted 
driving.  See, e.g., George v. Champion Ins. Co., 591 So. 2d 852 (Ala. 1991) 
(holding that a driver was not wanton for glancing back in conversation).  
But evidence of distracted driving can be evidence of wantonness 
when the distraction results from " 'the conscious doing of some act or the 
omission of some duty.'"  Lands, 349 So. 3d at 229 (quoting Essary, 992 
So. 2d at 9).  For that reason, active phone use like texting, browsing the 
Internet, or engaging with a music app is qualitatively different from 
distractions that are not the result of a conscious act or that arise from 
an inadvertent reaction to some external event or stimulus.  Here, Tutor 
testified that she "made the decision" to pick up and engage with her 
phone to change the song.  She, Caulder, and Frazier all testified that 
she was still using her phone at the time of impact.  It is thus reasonable 
to conclude that her active phone use was not a mere distraction resulting 
from inadvertence, but the result of a conscious choice. 
1210037 
13 
 
C. Substantial Evidence of Knowledge of Dangerous Circumstances  
The record supports finding that, when Tutor decided to continue 
speeding and to look down to use her mobile phone, she knew that the 
conditions were dangerous to herself and her passengers.  We have 
repeatedly said that "'"the actor's knowledge may be proved by showing 
circumstances from which the fact of knowledge is a reasonable inference; 
it need not be proved by direct evidence."'"  Hicks, 819 So. 2d at 24 
(citations omitted).  To this end, Caulder testified that Tutor's passengers 
had twice admonished her for her speed, but that she did not slow down.  
And Frazier testified that he heard Caulder shout at Tutor to slow down 
moments before the impact.  Like the notice created by the construction 
signs in Hicks, these warnings support the inference that she was on 
notice that her speed was excessive and dangerous.  
Even beyond the passengers' warnings, however, the evidence 
shows that Tutor knew of other dangerous conditions that warranted 
caution.  Tutor was driving in the lone northbound lane, which was 
divided from the two southbound lanes by a double line.  She 
acknowledged that she knew there was a car in front of her as she crested 
the hill, the summit of which constituted a blind spot and concealed the 
1210037 
14 
 
state of traffic on the other side.  For the six months preceding the crash, 
she lived less than two miles away from the hill.  She testified that she 
drove on the road enough to be "somewhat familiar" with it and to know 
there was a building and a railroad crossing on the far side of the hill.  
While she did not take this route daily, she testified that she took the 
road whenever she would visit her family in Columbus.   
Other evidence reinforces that Tutor engaged in conduct that she 
knew was dangerous under the circumstances.  She testified that she 
knew at the time of the wreck that it was dangerous to violate the speed 
limit, particularly when there was traffic congestion, and that it was a 
risk to her own and her passengers' safety to fail to adjust her speed when 
approaching a railroad crossing.  She further admitted that she knew at 
the time of the wreck that distracted driving can cause accidents 
resulting in injuries to others and serious bodily harm.  She also knew at 
that time that looking at a mobile phone while driving is dangerous and 
likely to cause dangerous accidents.  Accordingly, the jury could have 
reasonably concluded that Tutor knew that her speed was dangerous 
under the circumstances but chose not to slow down, then further chose 
1210037 
15 
 
to take her eyes off the road to use her phone with knowledge of the 
additional danger it would pose.  
Conclusion 
From this evidence, reasonable and fair-minded persons in the 
exercise of impartial judgment could reasonably infer that Tutor acted 
recklessly or with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.  
Cf. §§ 6-11-20, 12-21-12.   It was therefore proper for the jury to consider 
whether speeding, accompanied by active mobile phone use and 
knowledge of dangerous circumstances, was sufficient to impute a 
culpable state of mind to Tutor.  The trial court did not err in submitting 
the evidence to the jury, and it rightly denied Tutor's motion for judgment 
as a matter of law.  We affirm the judgment.   
 
AFFIRMED. 
 
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., 
concur.  
 
Sellers and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result.