Case Title: Kane v. Edward J. Woerner & Sons, Inc.

Citation: 543 So. 2d 693

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1989-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
543 So. 2d 693 (1989)
Edward KANE
v.
EDWARD J. WOERNER & SONS, INC., and Woerner Produce Company, Inc.
87-1265.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 21, 1989.
Thomas P. Williams and Bayless E. Biles of Wilkins, Bankester, Biles & Wynne, Bay Minette, for appellant.
Julian B. Brackin of Brackin & Bear, Foley, for appellees.
STEAGALL, Justice.
Edward Kane appeals from the trial court's order granting a new trial to defendant Woerner Produce Company, Inc.[1]
This cause of action arose out of an oral agreement between Kane and Edward J. Woerner & Sons, Inc.; Lester J. Woerner, individually; and Woerner Produce Company, Inc., a corporation. Counts 1 and 2 of Kane's complaint alleged, respectively, negligence and willful and wanton performance of the aforementioned oral agreement to spray Kane's corn fields with pesticide. Counts 3 and 4 alleged, respectively, negligence and willful and wanton misconduct in the picking of Kane's corn crop. Prior to trial, Kane dismissed Lester J. Woerner as a defendant. The trial then proceeded on the merits. At the close of Kane's case-in-chief, Woerner & Sons and Woerner Produce moved for a directed verdict. At that time, Kane was ordered by the trial court to make an election as to which party defendant (Woerner & Sons or Woerner Produce) he wished to proceed against. The trial transcript reads:
"THE COURT:
"MR. BRACKIN [for the defendants]:
"THE COURT:
"MR. BILES [for Kane]:
*694 "THE COURT:
After granting the directed verdict in favor of Woerner Produce on all four counts, the trial court directed a verdict as to Woerner & Sons on counts 2 and 4, alleging willful and wanton misconduct. The trial court then proceeded, without objection, on counts 1 and 3 of Kane's original complaint. At the conclusion of all the evidence, Woerner & Sons moved for a directed verdict, which was granted. The trial court stated:
"THE COURT:
After reinstating Woerner Produce as a defendant, the judge sent the case to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Kane. Damages were awarded in the amount of $25,000 as to count 1 and $10,000 as to count 3. Following this verdict, the trial court granted Woerner Produce's motion for a new trial. The trial judge stated in his order granting a new trial:
It is from this order that Kane appeals.
The only issue presented for review under the circumstances of this case is whether the trial court erred in ordering a new trial.
Hill v. Sherwood, 488 So. 2d 1357 (Ala. 1986).
It appears that, because of the uncertainty about which corporation was being proceeded against, Woerner Produce was led to believe, during the time that it could have presented its defense, that it was out of the case on a directed verdict. Its attorney made the following argument: "Well, I may or may not have introduced some things. I may not have introduced anything if I have known what Your Honor was going to do because they had not carried their burden of proof."
From a review of the record, we find no abuse of any legal right or any plain and palpable error. The trial court could have concluded that Woerner Produce had not received a fair trial. Thus, the trial court's *695 order granting Woerner Produce a new trial is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
[1]  Although defendant Edward J. Woerner & Sons, Inc., was also named as an appellee, Kane makes no arguments on appeal regarding that defendant.