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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1081226

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
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 f o r m a l 
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 Reporter. 
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 
Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
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 
be 
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 Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 
1081226 
Mary N e l l 
P h i l l i p s 
v. 
James T r a v i s Seward and H e a r t l a n d Express, 
Inc. 
Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-06-699) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
Mary N e l l 
P h i l l i p s 
sued commercial t r u c k d r i v e r James 
T r a v i s Seward and 
h i s 
employer, H e a r t l a n d 
E x p r e s s , 
I n c . , i n 
the 
Houston 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
a f t e r she was i n j u r e d i n 
an 
a u t o m o b i l e 
a c c i d e n t 
i n v o l v i n g h e r v e h i c l e and an 18-wheel 
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. F o l l o w i n g a j u r y 
t r i a l , 
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 H e a r t l a n d 
E x p r e s s . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d e n i e d 
P h i l l i p s ' s 
motion f o r a 
judgment as a m a t t e r o f law o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r a new 
t r i a l and e n t e r e d a judgment on the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . 
P h i l l i p s 
a p p e a l s . 
We r e v e r s e and remand. 
I. 
On November 17, 2004, 
P h i l l i p s was 
d r i v i n g her Dodge 
Caravan m i n i v a n 
on Ross C l a r k C i r c l e on the n o r t h s i d e o f 
Dothan when she e n t e r e d a d e d i c a t e d r i g h t - t u r n l a n e t o t u r n 
r i g h t and t r a v e l n o r t h on the Montgomery Highway. 
That r i g h t -
t u r n l a n e was not governed by the t r a f f i c 
s i g n a l 
d i r e c t i n g 
t r a f f i c c r o s s i n g or t u r n i n g l e f t onto the Montgomery Highway; 
r a t h e r , the t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l d e v i c e f o r t h a t l a n e was a y i e l d 
s i g n . 
As P h i l l i p s came t o the i n t e r s e c t i o n , she stopped at a 
spot 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
even w i t h the y i e l d 
s i g n t o w a i t f o r a 
break i n t r a f f i c on the Montgomery Highway so she c o u l d merge 
i n t o the northbound l a n e to her l e f t once she made the t u r n . 
The 
l a n e 
P h i l l i p s 
was 
stopped 
i n c o n t i n u e d 
n o r t h on the 
Montgomery Highway f o r some p e r i o d b e f o r e r e q u i r i n g v e h i c l e s 
i n i t 
t o 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 t h a t she d i d 
2 
1081226 
not p r o c e e d i n the l a n e because she "wasn't g o i n g t o t u r n 
r i g h t . " 
Seward was 
t r a v e l i n g 
t h a t same 
r o u t e when he 
p u l l e d 
b e h i n d 
P h i l l i p s and stopped t o w a i t f o r her t o e n t e r the 
Montgomery Highway so t h a t he c o u l d then do l i k e w i s e . 
When 
q u e s t i o n e d by P h i l l i p s ' s a t t o r n e y a t t r i a l , Seward d e s c r i b e d 
the a c c i d e n t t h a t happened next as f o l l o w s : 
"Q: 
T e l l us how t h i s a c c i d e n t happened. 
"A: We were stopped i n 
the t u r n l a n e . Ms. P h i l l i p s 
p u l l e d f o r w a r d . 
I l e t 
o f f 
my 
c l u t c h , moved 
f o r w a r d . 
She stopped. 
I c o u l d n ' t s t o p i n time 
to keep f r o m bumping 
h e r . " 
Seward f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was unsure e x a c t l y where he 
was l o o k i n g i n the moments i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e the a c c i d e n t 
when he l o o k e d back and saw P h i l l i p s had s t o p p e d : 
"Q: 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 had been stopped, and then you l o o k e d up, 
and then she had stopped, and then t h a t ' s when 
you h i t h e r ? 
"A: We were stopped. 
"Q: But 
a g a i n , 
you don't 
know 
where 
you were 
l o o k i n g j u s t b e f o r e the a c c i d e n t , do you? 
"A: We were stopped. 
I f 
you want me t o say e x a c t l y 
what I was l o o k i n g at a t t h a t moment, I c a n ' t 
be a c c u r a t e about t h a t . 
3 
1081226 
"Q: You 
agree 
t h a t 
Ms. 
P h i l l i p s 
was 
s t o p p e d . 
C o r r e c t ? 
"A: Yes. 
"Q: And when you h i t h e r , she was stopped? 
"A: Yes, s i r . 
"Q: Okay. 
And now, why i s i t 
t h a t you d i d 
not see 
her stopped? 
"A: When I saw her stopped, i t was too l a t e t o 
r e a c t , so I bumped h e r . 
"Q: I s 
t h a t 
because 
you had been 
l o o k i n g o f f 
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 at t h a t moment. 
"Q: 
That's f i n e . 
But a t the time you l o o k e d up -¬
when you l o o k e d back, she was stopped? 
"A: Yes, s i r . 
"Q: Okay. 
And you don't 
f a u l t her f o r t h i s , do 
you? 
"A: No, 
s i r . 
"Q: You don't have any c r i t i c i s m of Ms. P h i l l i p s ? 
"A: No, s i r . No, s i r . Not a t a l l . " 
The 
p o l i c e 
o f f i c e r 
who 
responded 
t o the 
a c c i d e n t 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t Seward t o l d him he was moving 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 hour a t the time of impact and i n 
the o f f i c e r ' s 
e s t i m a t i o n t h a t "would p r o b a b l y be p r e t t y c l o s e . " 
P h i l l i p s 
4 
1081226 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t she never saw Seward, but she was adamant t h a t 
she never moved f o r w a r d or took her f o o t o f f 
the brake a f t e r 
she came t o her i n i t i a l 
s t o p even w i t h the y i e l d s i g n . 
She 
d e s c r i b e d the a c c i d e n t as f o l l o w s a t 
t r i a l : 
" W e l l , 
the 
t r a f f i c 
was 
r e a l 
heavy 
t h a t 
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 
the 
t r a f f i c t h a t was headed up n o r t h o f f 
of [Ross C l a r k ] 
C i r c l e . 
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 of m i n u t e s , because i t 
was r e a l heavy. 
And 
I had p u l l e d my sun v i s o r down, because I was headed 
toward the sun. And j u s t , s u d d e n l y , t h i s impact 
h i t 
me, and I was thrown f o r w a r d . 
And, you know, a s e a t 
b e l t , I guess, 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 around me. 
And my head h i t 
the sun v i s o r . 
And p o s s i b l y , i t might have even 
h i t 
the m e t a l a c r o s s the top of the c a r , 
because I'm a 
t a l l l a d y , you know. 
But I d i d 
have a head 
i n j u r y . 
In f a c t , I almost l o s t 
c o n s c i o u s n e s s . " 
F o l l o w i n g the a c c i d e n t , P h i l l i p s ' s grandson was c a l l e d t o 
the 
scene, and he took her t o the h o s p i t a l . 
P h i l l i p s c o m p l a i n e d 
of head and neck p a i n , and X-rays were t a k e n , but no f r a c t u r e s 
were 
r e v e a l e d , 
and P h i l l i p s was 
r e l e a s e d . 
In the p e r i o d 
f o l l o w i n g the a c c i d e n t , 
P h i l l i p s e x p e r i e n c e d 
b r u i s i n g on her 
abdomen where the s e a t b e l t had caught h e r , and an e s c h a r , or 
p a t c h of dead s k i n t i s s u e , d e v e l o p e d i n the same a r e a . 
A 
b l i s t e r 
s u b s e q u e n t l y 
d e v e l o p e d 
t h e r e 
as 
w e l l , 
which her 
p h y s i c i a n a d v i s e d was a s u p e r f i c i a l s e a t - b e l t b u r n . 
5 
1081226 
On November 8, 2006, P h i l l i p s sued Seward and 
H e a r t l a n d 
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 
and 
s e e k i n g damages f o r the i n j u r i e s she a l l e g e d she had 
s u f f e r e d 
i n 
the November 
17, 
2004, 
a c c i d e n t . 
A f t e r 
d i s c o v e r y 
was 
c o n c l u d e d 
and 
p r e t r i a l 
motions 
were 
r e s o l v e d , 
the 
case 
proceeded to 
t r i a l 
on 
A p r i l 
15, 
2009. 
At 
t r i a l , 
P h i l l i p s 
argued 
t h a t 
Seward's 
n e g l i g e n c e 
had 
caused 
the 
a c c i d e n t , 
r e s u l t i n g 
i n 
the 
i n j u r i e s 
t r e a t e d 
i m m e d i a t e l y 
a f t e r 
the 
a c c i d e n t , 
as 
w e l l as 
a 
f i s t u l a 
r u n n i n g 
from her 
c o l o n 
and 
e x i t i n g her stomach t h a t d i d not d e v e l o p u n t i l J u l y 2007, but 
w h i c h , she 
a l l e g e d , was 
caused when a p i e c e 
of p r o l e n e mesh 
p l a c e d 
i n her abdomen i n a J u l y 1999 
p r o c e d u r e to t r e a t 
an 
i n c i s i o n a l 
h e r n i a 
was 
j a r r e d 
l o o s e 
by 
the 
impact 
of 
the 
a c c i d e n t 
and 
s u b s e q u e n t l y became enmeshed 
i n 
her 
c o l o n , 
l e a d i n g to an i n f e c t i o n .
1 
Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s d e n i e d 
t h a t 
Seward's 
a c t i o n s 
l e a d i n g 
up 
to 
the 
a c c i d e n t 
were 
n e g l i g e n t ; they argued t h a t the a c c i d e n t was 
i n s t e a d caused by 
P h i l l i p s ' s n e g l i g e n c e . 
They a l s o s u b m i t t e d t e s t i m o n y from an 
'A 
" f i s t u l a " 
has been d e f i n e d 
as 
"'an 
abnormal passage 
l e a d i n g from an abscess or h o l l o w organ to the body s u r f a c e 
or 
from one 
h o l l o w 
organ to a n o t h e r and 
p e r m i t t i n g passage 
of 
f l u i d s or s e c r e t i o n s . ' " Orgeron v. L o u i s i a n a Med. 
Mut. 
I n s . 
 
Co., 
1 So. 
3d 
576, 
582 
n. 
6 
(La. 
Ct. 
App. 
2008 
) ( q u o t i n g 
Webster's C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 
(10th ed. 
1 9 9 7 ) ) . 
6 
1081226 
e x p e r t 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the e r o s i o n of the p r o l e n e mesh i n t o 
P h i l l i p s ' s c o l o n was u n r e l a t e d t o the a u t o m o b i l e 
a c c i d e n t . 
A f t e r the p r e s e n t a t i o n 
of a l l the e v i d e n c e , 
P h i l l i p s 
moved f o r a judgment as a m a t t e r of law on the i s s u e s of 
n e g l i g e n c e and l i a b i l i t y , 
a r g u i n g 
t h a t " [ t ] h e r e has been no 
e v i d e n c e at a l l p r e s e n t e d 
t h a t would l e a d any f a c t f i n d e r t o 
c o n c l u d e t h a t [the a c c i d e n t ] was a n y t h i n g o t h e r than the f a u l t 
of Mr. Seward." 
The t r i a l 
c o u r t d e n i e d the m o t i o n , and the 
case was then s u b m i t t e d t o the j u r y , which u l t i m a t e l y 
r e t u r n e d 
a 
v e r d i c t 
i n 
f a v o r 
of 
Seward 
and 
H e a r t l a n d 
E x p r e s s . 
P h i l l i p s ' s 
postjudgment motion 
r e q u e s t i n g a judgment as a 
m a t t e r of a law o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , a new 
t r i a l , was 
s u b s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d by the t r i a l c o u r t , and, on June 12, 2009, 
she 
f i l e d her t i m e l y n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o t h i s 
C o u r t . 
I I . 
On a p p e a l , 
P h i l l i p s 
f i r s t 
argues t h a t the t r i a l 
c o u r t 
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 of law i n her 
f a v o r on the i s s u e s of n e g l i g e n c e and l i a b i l i t y . 
We 
r e v i e w 
t h i s argument p u r s u a n t t o the f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w : 
"When r e v i e w i n g 
a r u l i n g on a motion f o r a 
[judgment as a m a t t e r of l a w ] , 
t h i s Court uses the 
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 whether t o g r a n t or deny the motion f o r 
a 
7 
1081226 
[judgment 
as a m a t t e r of l a w ] . 
Palm Harbor Homes,  
I n c . 
v. 
C r a w f o r d , 
689 
So. 
2d 
3 
( A l a . 
1997). 
R e g a r d i n g 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 whether the 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 to a l l o w the case t o be s u b m i t t e d t o the 
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. Henderson, 
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 motion 
f o r a [judgment 
as a m a t t e r of 
l a w ] . 
See 
§ 12-21-12, A l a . Code 
1975 ; West 
v. 
 
Founders 
L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. of 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 
determine whether the p a r t y who b e a r s the burden of 
p r o o f has produced 
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 the 
j u r y . 
C a r t e r , 598 So. 2d at 1353. 
In r e v i e w i n g a 
r u l i n g 
on a motion 
f o r a [judgment 
as a m a t t e r of l a w ] , 
t h i s 
Court views 
the e v i d e n c e 
i n the 
l i g h t 
most 
f a v o r a b l e 
to 
the 
nonmovant 
and 
e n t e r t a i n s 
such 
r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as the j u r y would have been 
j _ 
_ 
_
i 
- r _ i 
I I 
f r e e to draw. 
I d . " 
Waddell & Reed, I n c . v. U n i t e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e I n s . Co., 8 
7 
5 
So. 2d 1143, 1152 
( A l a . 2003). 
In her b r i e f , 
P h i l l i p s summarizes her argument t h a t 
she 
was 
e n t i t l e d to a judgment as a m a t t e r of law as 
f o l l o w s : 
"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 caused the 
a c c i d e n t was u n d i s p u t e d at t r i a l . 
Seward 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t the r e a s o n a b l e t h i n g f o r him to have done 
was 
to o p e r a t e h i s v e h i c l e so as to a v o i d h i t t i n g 
the 
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 the 
v e h i c l e o p e r a t e d by 
P h i l l i p s 
from b e h i n d , t h a t 
he 
had no 
c r i t i c i s m s of P h i l l i p s and t h a t he d i d not 
f a u l t her f o r the a c c i d e n t . 
Seward f a i l e d t o keep 
a 
p r o p e r 
l o o k o u t , 
was 
not 
p a y i n g 
a t t e n t i o n 
t o 
t r a f f i c , 
was 
f o l l o w i n g 
too 
c l o s e l y 
and 
drove 
an 
e i g h t e e n - w h e e l e r 
i n t o the r e a r of 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 
1081226 
( P h i l l i p s ' s b r i e f , pp. 27-28.) 
Seward and H e a r t l a n d 
E x p r e s s 
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 of law was not 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
because, 
they 
argue, 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e 
was 
p r e s e n t e d 
at 
t r i a l 
i n d i c a t i n g 
(1) 
t h a t 
Seward 
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 under 
the 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 
and (2) t h a t 
P h i l l i p s 
a c t e d 
u n r e a s o n a b l y 
under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s and was thus c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . 
We 
f i r s t 
c o n s i d e r 
the e v i d e n c e 
r e g a r d i n g 
Seward's 
a l l e g e d 
n e g l i g e n c e . 
At 
t r i a l , 
the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t e d : 
(1) 
t h a t 
P h i l l i p s stopped her v e h i c l e i n the r i g h t - t u r n l a n e on Ross 
C l a r k 
C i r c l e to t u r n n o r t h onto the Montgomery Highway; (2) 
t h a t Seward stopped h i s v e h i c l e b e h i n d her 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 the r e a r of P h i l l i p s ' s v e h i c l e 
w i t h 
the f r o n t of h i s v e h i c l e . 
In Harshaw v. N a t i o n w i d e 
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 
a l s o i n v o l v i n g a r e a r - e n d 
c o l l i s i o n , we 
s t a t e d t h a t , under 
Alabama law, such e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h a prima 
f a c i e case of 
n e g l i g e n c e : 
"[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 
[the u n i n s u r e d 
m o t o r i s t ] was at f a u l t , t h a t i s , t h a t 
he 
was 
n e g l i g e n t . 
F i r s t , 
she 
p r o v e d , 
w i t h o u t 
d i s p u t e , 
t h a t 
[the 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 of her v e h i c l e , which was 
l a w f u l l y stopped. 
In so p r o v i n g , she e s t a b l i s h e d 
t h a t [the u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t ] was prima f a c i e 
g u i l t y 
of 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 
Alabama' i s 
t h a t 'one 
who d r i v e s h i s 
auto i n t o t h e r e a r of a n o t h e r who i s 
s t o p p e d i n obedience t o 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 a l s o 
noted i n Harshaw, "the defendant may 
p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t o r e b u t the p l a i n t i f f ' s prima f a c i e c a s e . " 
834 So. 2d a t 765. 
Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s argue 
t h a t 
they d i d 
i n f a c t r e b u t P h i l l i p s ' s e v i d e n c e inasmuch 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 s i g n , P h i l l i p s s t a r t e d t o move her v e h i c l e f o r w a r d 
and then stopped, l e a v i n g Seward w i t h no time t o brake 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 t h a t "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 would c o n t i n u e moving i n 
t h e 
merge l a n e when he 
o b s e r v e d her moving f o r w a r d i n the t u r n l a n e , and t h a t he 
a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y i n l e t t i n g o f f 
h i s b r a k e s t o move f o r w a r d 
a l s o . " 
( B r i e f of Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s , pp. 27-28.) 
We agree. 
F a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l 
^Although 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 then 
stopped a g a i n , our s t a n d a r d of 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 
the 
purposes of t h i s a n a l y s i s . 
Waddell & Reed, I n c . , 875 So. 2d at 
1152. 
10 
1081226 
judgment c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was r e a s o n a b l e f o r Seward t o 
b e g i n moving f o r w a r d when he saw t h a t P h i l l i p s was d o i n g so. 
West v. Founders 
L i f e A s s u r a n c e 
Co. of F l o r i d a , 547 
So. 
2d 
870, 871 
( A l a . 1989) 
( " [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e of 
such 
weight 
and 
q u a l i t y 
t h a t 
f a i r - m i n d e d persons 
i n 
the 
e x e r c i s e 
of 
i m p a r t i a l 
judgment 
can 
r e a s o n a b l y 
i n f e r 
the 
e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d . " ) . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
because 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 from 
which the j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h a t Seward's a c t i o n s 
l e a d i n g 
t o 
the 
r e a r - e n d 
c o l l i s i o n 
w i t h 
P h i l l i p s 
were 
r e a s o n a b l e , the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n d e n y i n g 
P h i l l i p s ' s 
motion 
f o r a judgment as a m a t t e r of law on the i s s u e s 
of 
n e g l i g e n c e and l i a b i l i t y . 
See a l s o Jones v. B a l t a z a r , 658 So. 
2d 420 
( A l a . 1995) 
( h o l d i n g t h a t 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 the defendant had a c t e d as a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n 
under the 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 
not n e g l i g e n t even 
though she had r e a r - e n d e d the p l a i n t i f f ' s stopped 
v e h i c l e ) . 
I I I . 
In the event t h i s Court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t her motion f o r a 
judgment 
as 
a m a t t e r 
of 
law 
was 
not 
e r r o n e o u s l y d e n i e d , 
P h i l l i p s has a l s o argued t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d t o a new 
t r i a l 
11 
1081226 
f o r 
the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : 
(1) the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was 
a g a i n s t 
the g r e a t weight of the e v i d e n c e and was 
p l a i n l y and 
p a l p a b l y 
wrong; (2) the j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n by the t r i a l c o u r t were 
s u f f i c i e n t l y 
e r r o n e o u s and/or 
m i s l e a d i n g 
as 
to c o n s t i t u t e 
p r e j u d i c i a l 
and 
r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ; and 
(3) 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by a l l o w i n g the t e s t i m o n y 
of Seward 
and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s ' s e x p e r t w i t n e s s , who 
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 caused the development of 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 years a f t e r the a c c i d e n t . 
We 
agree t h a t the j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n by the 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 inasmuch as the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
charged 
the 
j u r y 
as 
to 
c o n t r i b u t o r y 
n e g l i g e n c e . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
we 
c o n s i d e r 
o n l y 
t h a t argument 
and 
p r e t e r m i t 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
of 
P h i l l i p s ' s 
o t h e r 
arguments 
s e e k i n g 
a 
new 
t r i a l . 
P h i l l i p s argues t h a t Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s 
f a i l e d 
to p r e s e n t 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 she 
was 
i n j u r e d was 
at 
l e a s t 
p a r t l y 
the 
r e s u l t 
of 
her 
own 
n e g l i g e n c e 
and 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a c c o r d i n g l y 
e r r e d 
by 
c h a r g i n g 
the j u r y on c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . 
In George 
H. 
12 
1081226 
L a n i e r M e m o r i a l H o s p i t a l v. Andrews, 809 So. 2d 802, 806 ( A l a . 
2001), we s t a t e d : 
"Under Alabama law, 
'"[a] p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d to 
p r o p e r 
j u r y 
i n s t r u c t i o n s 
r e g a r d i n g 
the 
i s s u e s 
p r e s e n t e d , and an i n c o r r e c t or m i s l e a d i n g charge 
may 
be 
the 
b a s i s 
f o r the 
g r a n t i n g of 
a new 
t r i a l . " ' 
K i n g v. W.A. 
Brown & Sons, I n c . , 585 
So. 2d 10, 
12 
( A l a . 1991) 
( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . 
When an o b j e c t i o n 
to a j u r y charge 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 to the 
e n t i r e t y of the 
[ j u r y ] charge to 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 
o n l y 
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 
at 
12." 
I t 
i s u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t 
P h i l l i p s 
p r o p e r l y 
o b j e c t e d 
to 
the 
c h a l l e n g e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e 
and t h a t she p r e s e r v e d 
t h a t i s s u e f o r a p p e a l ; t h e r e f o r e , we 
must 
d e t e r m i n e 
whether, 
i n 
f a c t , 
t h e r e 
was 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
P h i l l i p s 
was 
i n some way 
n e g l i g e n t so as 
to 
j u s t i f y 
the 
g i v i n g 
of 
the 
c h a l l e n g e d 
i n s t r u c t i o n 
on 
c o n t r i b u t o r y 
n e g l i g e n c e . 
The 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 p r o v i d e s t h a t "a 
p l a i n t i f f 
cannot 
r e c o v e r 
i n 
a 
n e g l i g e n c e 
s u i t 
where 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
own 
n e g l i g e n c e 
i s shown 
to 
have 
p r o x i m a t e l y 
c o n t r i b u t e d 
to 
h i s damage, 
n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g 
a 
showing 
of 
n e g l i g e n c e 
on the p a r t of the d e f e n d a n t . " 
Brown v. P i g g l y - 
W i g g l y 
S t o r e s , 
454 
So. 
2d 
1370, 
1372 
( A l a . 
1984). 
13 
1081226 
C o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i s 
an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , and Seward 
and H e a r t l a n d 
E x p r e s s a c c o r d i n g l y bore the burden of p r o v i n g 
i t at t r i a l . 
S e r i o v. M e r r e l l , I n c . , 
941 So. 2d 960 , 964 
( A l a . 2006). 
Seward and H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s argue t h a t they met 
t h e i r burden by s u b m i t t i n g 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 
stopped her v e h i c l e at the y i e l d 
s i g n , s t a r t e d t o move 
i t 
f o r w a r d , and then stopped i t 
even though t h e r e was an open 
merge l a n e i n f r o n t of h e r , l e a v i n g Seward w i t h no time t o 
brake 
b e f o r e 
r u n n i n g 
i n t o the r e a r of her v e h i c l e . 
We 
d i s a g r e e 
t h a t 
t h i s 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t 
P h i l l i p s 
was 
n e g l i g e n t . 
I t 
i s u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t the l a n e 
i n which 
P h i l l i p s ' s 
v e h i c l e 
would be t r a v e l i n g when she made the r i g h t 
t u r n 
e v e n t u a l l y 
r e q u i r e d 
v e h i c l e s 
i n i t t o t u r n 
r i g h t , 
t h a t 
P h i l l i p s d i d not i n t e n d t o t u r n 
r i g h t , and t h a t she was 
a t t e m p t i n g 
t o merge 
l e f t 
i n t o heavy 
t r a f f i c so she c o u l d 
c o n t i n u e 
n o r t h on the Montgomery Highway. 
We cannot agree 
t h a t 
a 
f a i r - m i n d e d 
p e r s o n 
i n the e x e r c i s e 
of i m p a r t i a l 
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 
such 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 or 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 
had stopped and 
14 
1081226 
then 
r e s t o p p i n g . 
C e r t a i n l y , Seward d i d not b e l i e v e 
t h a t 
P h i l l i p s 
a c t e d 
u n r e a s o n a b l y ; he had no 
c r i t i c i s m 
of her 
d r i v i n g a t t r i a l , and he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d 
not f a u l t her 
f o r 
the a c c i d e n t . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t Seward and 
H e a r t l a n d E x p r e s s f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t 
P h i l l i p s was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y 
n e g l i g e n t . 
In the absence of 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
P h i l l i p s 
was 
i n some 
manner 
n e g l i g e n t , the t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e r r e d by c h a r g i n g the j u r y on 
c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . 
That e r r o r was 
p r e j u d i c i a l and 
can 
be 
remedied 
o n l y by g r a n t i n g 
P h i l l i p s ' s 
motion f o r a new 
t r i a l . 
IV. 
Because t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e from which the 
j u r y c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y 
c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t Seward's 
a c t i o n s 
l e a d i n g t o the a c c i d e n t were r e a s o n a b l e , the t r i a l c o u r t d i d 
not e r r i n d e n y i n g 
P h i l l i p s ' s 
motion f o r a judgment as a 
m a t t e r of law on the i s s u e s of n e g l i g e n c e 
and 
l i a b i l i t y . 
However, because t h e r e was not 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 the a c c i d e n t was t o some e x t e n t caused by P h i l l i p s ' s own 
n e g l i g e n c e 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 
n e g l i g e n c e , 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 the j u r y . 
15 
1081226 
A c c o r d i n g l y , the judgment e n t e r e d on the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i s 
r e v e r s e d , and the cause i s remanded f o r 
a new 
t r i a l . 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
Lyons, Smith, P a r k e r , and Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 
Cobb, C.J., and Woodall and Murdock, J J . , concur i n 
the 
r e s u l t . 
16 
1081226 
WOODALL, J u s t i c e 
( c o n c u r r i n g i n 
the r e s u l t ) . 
I concur i n the r e s u l t . 
I agree t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e r r e d 
by 
c h a r g i n g 
the j u r y 
on 
c o n t r i b u t o r y 
n e g l i g e n c e . 
A l t h o u g h 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 . , 
argue t h a t t h e y " 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 from which a 
r e a s o n a b l e 
j u r o r c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t [Mary N e l l ] P h i l l i p s made 
a sudden stop t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t o cause the a c c i d e n t , " 
b r i e f 
of Seward and H e a r t l a n d , a t 38 (emphasis added), my r e v i e w of 
the 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 "made 
a sudden s t o p " or t h a t she was p o s s i b l y n e g l i g e n t i n some 
o t h e r 
r e s p e c t . 
Cobb, C.J., c o n c u r s . 
17