Title: Hand v. Howell, Sarto & Howell

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 05/31/2013 
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, 2012-2013 
1120133 
Tommy Hand 
v. 
Howell, Sarto & Howell and 
William P. Roberts II 
Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-10-0059) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
Tommy Hand sued t h e P r a t t v i l l e law 
f i r m o f 
H o w e l l , 
S a r t o 
& H o w e l l ("the 
H o w e l l f i r m " ) and W i l l i a m P. R o b e r t s I I , an 
a t t o r n e y 
f o r m e r l y employed by t h e 
H o w e l l 
f i r m , 
a s s e r t i n g a 
c l a i m under t h e 
Alabama L e g a l S e r v i c e s L i a b i l i t y A c t , § 
6-5-
1120133 
570 e t seq., A l a . Code 1975 ("the ALSLA"), based on 
t h e i r 
a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f him i n an a c t i o n 
s e e k i n g 
damages f o r p e r s o n a l 
i n j u r i e s he s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of an 
a u t o m o b i l e 
a c c i d e n t . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
a summary 
judgment i n f a v o r of t h e H o w e l l f i r m and R o b e r t s ; Hand now 
a p p e a l s . 
We a f f i r m . 
I . 
On September 15, 2004, Hand 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 on i n t e r s t a t e highway I-65 i n Montgomery when t h e 
t r u c k he was d r i v i n g was s t r u c k i n the r e a r by a n o t h e r v e h i c l e 
b e i n g d r i v e n by J u l i e B e n n e t t . 
A t the time o f t h e a c c i d e n t , 
Hand was 
d r i v i n g a t r u c k f o r h i s employer, Hodges Bonded 
Warehouse, I n c . , and B e n n e t t was on-duty and w o r k i n g w i t h i n 
the 
l i n e and scope o f h e r employment w i t h t h e Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r . 
Hand s u f f e r e d a back i n j u r y i n t h e a c c i d e n t and 
s u b s e q u e n t l y r e t a i n e d t h e H o w e l l f i r m t o pursue a p e r s o n a l -
i n j u r y c l a i m a g a i n s t B e n n e t t stemming from t h e a c c i d e n t . 
R o b e r t s , a t the time an a s s o c i a t e a t t o r n e y a t t h e H o w e l l 
f i r m , was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d o i n g t h e i n i t i a l work on Hand's 
p e r s o n a l - i n j u r y 
c l a i m . 
He was 
s u p e r v i s e d 
i n t h a t work by 
George H o w e l l , a p a r t n e r i n t h e H o w e l l f i r m . On September 11, 
2 
1120133 
2006, R o b e r t s 
f i l e d 
a c o m p l a i n t i n the Montgomery 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
on 
b e h a l f 
of 
Hand 
a s s e r t i n g 
a 
n e g l i g e n c e 
and/or 
wantonness c l a i m a g a i n s t B e n n e t t . 
That c o m p l a i n t d i d not name 
the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r o r i t s c o r p o r a t e p a r e n t , G a n n e t t , 
I n c . , as d e f e n d a n t s , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the f a c t t h a t B e n n e t t was 
on-duty and w o r k i n g f o r the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r a t the time 
of t h e a c c i d e n t . 
In a d e p o s i t i o n , R o b e r t s would l a t e r 
s t a t e 
t h a t George H o w e l l t o l d him i t was u n n e c e s s a r y t o add them as 
p a r t i e s . 
The H o w e l l f i r m s u b s e q u e n t l y r e t a i n e d an a c c o u n t a n t t o 
c a l c u l a t e the p r e s e n t t o t a l v a l u e o f Hand's economic l o s s as 
a r e s u l t o f the a c c i d e n t ; based on the s e v e r i t y o f h i s back 
i n j u r y , t h a t f i g u r e was c a l c u l a t e d t o be $872,500. 
S e t t l e m e n t 
n e g o t i a t i o n s ensued, and B e n n e t t ' s p e r s o n a l i n s u r a n c e company 
u l t i m a t e l y o f f e r e d up $25,000, t h e l i m i t o f her p o l i c y . 
In 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y June 2007, R o b e r t s l e a r n e d t h a t an 
a d d i t i o n a l 
$5,000,000 i n coverage was a v a i l a b l e t o B e n n e t t under a p o l i c y 
T r a v e l e r s I n s u r a n c e ( " T r a v e l e r s " ) had i s s u e d t o G a n n e t t , I n c . , 
and, i n F e b r u a r y 2008, R o b e r t s o f f e r e d t o s e t t l e the case f o r 
$1,000,000; t h a t o f f e r was 
r e j e c t e d . 
3 
1120133 
I n 
August 2008 R o b e r t s 
l e f t 
the H o w e l l 
f i r m , 
and 
i n 
O c t o b e r 2008 t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d h i s r e q u e s t t o withdraw 
from Hand's case. 
A l t h o u g h George H o w e l l remained as Hand's 
a t t o r n e y o f r e c o r d , h i s h e a l t h was poor and he was u n a b l e t o 
a d e q u a t e l y h a n d l e Hand's c a s e ; a c c o r d i n g l y , H a r o l d H o w e l l , who 
appears 
t o have been the o n l y o t h e r a t t o r n e y a t the 
H o w e l l 
f i r m a t t h i s t i m e , r e t a i n e d B e t t y Love o f Love, Love, & Love 
i n T a l l a d e g a t o work on the case. 
On the c o v e r s h e e t o f the 
m a t e r i a l s H a r o l d H o w e l l f a x e d t o Love r e l a t i n g t o the c a s e , 
H a r o l d H o w e l l w r o t e : 
" I am 
f a x i n g you the 2 c o m p l a i n t s 
on 
Tommy Hand. 
George seems t o t h i n k t h i s i s s u f f i c i e n t . 
My 
t h o u g h t s are we s h o u l d have a l l e g e d she was an employee of the 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r 
a c t i n g i n the 
l i n e 
and scope o f 
her 
employment." 
I n 
May 
2009 Hand's case went t o m e d i a t i o n . 
Hand 
was 
r e p r e s e n t e d by H a r o l d H o w e l l and Love a t the m e d i a t i o n 
and 
made an i n i t i a l o f f e r t o s e t t l e h i s c l a i m a g a i n s t B e n n e t t f o r 
$1,750,000. 
I t appears t o be u n d i s p u t e d t h a t a l l 
the p a r t i e s 
u n d e r s t o o d 
t h a t T r a v e l e r s , which 
had 
r e t a i n e d 
c o u n s e l f o r 
B e n n e t t , would be f u n d i n g the v a s t m a j o r i t y of any s e t t l e m e n t ; 
i t s 
i n i t i a l c o u n t e r o f f e r was $40,000. 
A f t e r some n e g o t i a t i o n 
4 
1120133 
t h a t 
o f f e r 
was 
i n c r e a s e d 
t o 
$125,000; 
however, 
Hand 
s u b s e q u e n t l y r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t l e s s than $1,250,000 and w a l k e d 
out o f t h e m e d i a t i o n a f t e r H a r o l d H o w e l l and Love p r e s s u r e d 
him t o make a l o w e r c o u n t e r o f f e r . 
I n t h e f o l l o w i n g 
days, 
H a r o l d H o w e l l v i s i t e d Hand a t h i s r e s i d e n c e and Hand's w i f e a t 
her 
w o r k p l a c e 
i n an attempt 
t o g e t Hand t o reengage i n 
s e t t l e m e n t t a l k s ; however, h i s e f f o r t s were u n s u c c e s s f u l , and, 
on May 16, 2009, Hand n o t i f i e d the H o w e l l f i r m v i a l e t t e r t h a t 
he was t e r m i n a t i n g t h e i r a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p based on 
" c o n t i n u i n g p r e s s u r e on my w i f e and me t o t a k e a c t i o n s t h a t I 
do not f e e l would be i n my b e s t i n t e r e s t . " 
On J u l y 10, 2009, 
Hand o b t a i n e d h i s l e g a l 
f i l e from t h e H o w e l l 
f i r m . 
On 
J u l y 29, 2009, Hand met w i t h Montgomery a t t o r n e y s 
F r a n k Hawthorne and Randy Myers of t h e law f i r m Hawthorne & 
Myers t o d i s c u s s h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t B e n n e t t . 
They i n f o r m e d 
Hand a t t h a t time t h a t t h e v a l u e o f h i s case was d i m i n i s h e d 
because t h e Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r had not been named as a 
d e f e n d a n t and t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s on h i s c l a i m b a r r e d 
Hand from a d d i n g a new defendant a t t h i s 
l a t e d a t e . 
They 
s u b s e q u e n t l y p r e p a r e d a f f i d a v i t s i n which t h e y swore t h a t t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t v a l u e o f a case a g a i n s t the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r 
5 
1120133 
would have been between $1,000,000 and $1,200,000. 
Hawthorne 
and 
Myers 
n e v e r t h e l e s s 
a g r e e d 
t o 
r e p r e s e n t 
Hand, 
and, 
f o l l o w i n g a n o t h e r round o f m e d i a t i o n i n November 2009, Hand 
a g r e e d t o s e t t l e h i s case f o r $625,000. Of t h a t sum, $25,000 
was 
p a i d by B e n n e t t ' s p e r s o n a l a u t o - i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r and 
$600,000 was 
p a i d by T r a v e l e r s p u r s u a n t 
t o t h e i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y h e l d by G a n n e t t . 
On J a n u a r y 13, 2010, Hand f i l e d t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n i n 
the 
Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t R o b e r t s and t h e H o w e l l 
f i r m had committed 
l e g a l m a l p r a c t i c e by f a i l i n g t o name t h e 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r as a d e f e n d a n t i n h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t 
B e n n e t t . The case was s u b s e q u e n t l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e 
Autauga 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t , and, i n s e p a r a t e m o t i o n s , 
R o b e r t s and t h e 
H o w e l l 
f i r m moved f o r a summary judgment on Hand's c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t them, a r g u i n g ( 1 ) t h a t Hand's c l a i m s were b a r r e d by 
the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o c l a i m s b r o u g h t under 
the 
ALSLA; ( 2 ) t h a t 
Hand's 
c l a i m 
f o r damages 
was 
t o o 
s p e c u l a t i v e ; and ( 3 ) t h a t Hand had r e l e a s e d any c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
them i n t h e r e l e a s e he had e x e c u t e d i n accordance w i t h h i s 
s e t t l e m e n t i n t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t B e n n e t t . 
6 
1120133 
On May 14, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t conducted a h e a r i n g on 
the 
p e n d i n g summary-judgment m o t i o n s , and, on May 21, 
2012, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t g r a n t e d R o b e r t s ' s 
and 
the 
H o w e l l 
f i r m ' s 
motions and e n t e r e d a summary judgment i n t h e i r f a v o r w i t h o u t 
s p e c i f y i n g 
the b a s i s 
f o r t h a t 
r u l i n g . 
Hand's 
subsequent 
motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e the judgment was d e n i e d by 
o p e r a t i o n of law p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., 
and 
Hand now a p p e a l s . 
I I . 
Hand argues 
t h a t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g 
a 
summary judgment i n f a v o r of R o b e r t s and the H o w e l l f i r m . 
We 
r e v i e w t h i s argument p u r s u a n t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d : 
" T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w of a summary judgment i s de 
novo. 
W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. Auto. I n s . Co., 
886 So. 2d 72, 74 
( A l a . 2003) . 
We a p p l y the same 
s t a n d a r d 
o f 
r e v i e w 
as 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a p p l i e d . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e whether the movant 
has made a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t no genuine i s s u e 
of 
m a t e r i a l 
f a c t 
e x i s t s 
and 
t h a t 
the movant i s 
e n t i t l e d 
t o a judgment as a m a t t e r of law. 
R u l e 
5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d of  
Alabama v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 
2004). 
In making such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we 
must 
r e v i e w 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 t o 
the 
nonmovant. 
W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 
758 
( A l a . 
1986). 
Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a 
f a c i e 
showing t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l 
f a c t , 
the burden 
then 
s h i f t s t o the nonmovant t o 
produce 
' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o the e x i s t e n c e 
of 
a genuine 
i s s u e 
o f 
m a t e r i a l 
f a c t . 
Bass 
v. 
7 
1120133 
S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n County, 538 So. 2d 
794, 
797-98 ( A l a . 1989); A l a . Code 1975, 
§ 12-21-12." 
Dow v. Alabama D e m o c r a t i c 
P a r t y , 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 
( A l a . 2004). 
I I I . 
The gravamen o f Hand's a c t i o n i s t h a t R o b e r t s and 
t h e 
H o w e l l f i r m committed l e g a l m a l p r a c t i c e when t h e y f a i l e d t o 
name t h e Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r — 
which Hand 
l a b e l s " t h e 
c r i t i c a l deep-pocket d e f e n d a n t " — as a p a r t y i n 
Hand's a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t B e n n e t t . 
Hand argues t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o name t h e 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r as a d e f e n d a n t d e v a l u e d h i s case t o t h e 
e x t e n t 
t h a t he had t o s e t t l e f o r 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f o f what 
the case was w o r t h and f o r an amount s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than 
h i s 
a c t u a l 
economic 
damage, n o t t o mention h i s p a i n and 
s u f f e r i n g . 
Hand s u p p o r t s h i s c l a i m t h a t R o b e r t s ' s and 
t h e 
H o w e l l f i r m ' s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d l e g a l m a l p r a c t i c e 
w i t h t h e 
a f f i d a v i t t e s t i m o n y o f 
h i s subsequent a t t o r n e y s , Hawthorne and 
Myers, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h i s c l a i m would have been w o r t h up t o 
$1,200,000 had t h e Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r been named as a 
d e f e n d a n t , as w e l l as H a r o l d H o w e l l ' s note t o Love i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t "we s h o u l d have a l l e g e d [Bennett] was an employee o f t h e 
8 
1120133 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r 
a c t i n g 
i n the 
l i n e 
and 
scope of 
her 
employment." 
However, even though the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r was 
not a 
named d e f e n d a n t 
i n Hand's 
a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t 
B e n n e t t , 
i t 
was 
i n s u r e d under a p o l i c y 
T r a v e l e r s 
had 
i s s u e d the Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r ' s 
c o r p o r a t e 
p a r e n t Gannett, 
and 
B e n n e t t was 
an 
a d d i t i o n a l i n s u r e d under t h a t same p o l i c y . 
B e n n e t t i n v o k e d 
t h a t coverage d u r i n g the c o u r s e of Hand's a c t i o n a g a i n s t 
h e r , 
and 
T r a v e l e r s p r o v i d e d 
her w i t h c o u n s e l 
and funded the 
v a s t 
m a j o r i t y 
of the 
e v e n t u a l 
s e t t l e m e n t . 
There i s no 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t any a d d i t i o n a l i n s u r a n c e 
coverage would have 
been a v a i l a b l e had the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r been named as a 
d e f e n d a n t . 
Thus, Hand's c l a i m a g a i n s t R o b e r t s and the H o w e l l 
f i r m i s e s s e n t i a l l y dependent on 
the 
a s s e r t i o n t h a t a 
j u r y 
w o u l d 
have 
p u n i s h e d 
a 
"deep-pocket 
d e f e n d a n t " 
l i k e 
the 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r more than an 
i n d i v i d u a l 
l i k e 
B e n n e t t , 
and the c o n c o m i t a n t a s s e r t i o n t h a t Hand, t h e r e f o r e , would have 
been a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e 
a h i g h e r 
s e t t l e m e n t 
i f the Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r was 
a p a r t y based on 
the 
l i k e l i h o o d of a 
h i g h e r 
v e r d i c t b e i n g 
r e t u r n e d a g a i n s t the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r . 
9 
1120133 
However, even i f , as Hand a l l e g e s , " e v e r y t r i a l l a w y e r i n 
the c o u n t r y " would agree w i t h t h a t a s s e r t i o n , h i s argument 
u l t i m a t e l y 
f a i l s 
because we must presume t h a t 
j u r i e s 
w i l l 
f o l l o w the law, Johnson v. S t a t e , 612 So. 2d 1288, 1299 ( A l a . 
Crim. App. 
1992), and i t has l o n g been the law i n t h i s S t a t e 
t h a t a j u r y must c a l c u l a t e damages based on the e v i d e n c e o f 
i n j u r y , 
not the 
i d e n t i t y 
o f the d e f e n d a n t 
and h i s or 
her 
presumed w e a l t h . 
For example, i n Barbour County v. Horn, 
48 
A l a . 
566 
(1872), t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d a judgment based on a 
v e r d i c t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of a p l a i n t i f f 
who was 
i n j u r e d when 
he f e l l o f f an i n s e c u r e b r i d g e based on the improper a d m i s s i o n 
of 
e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g the d e f e n d a n t ' s w e a l t h and the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e the f o l l o w i n g r e q u e s t e d j u r y charge: 
" N e i t h e r the f a c t t h a t Barbour 
county, w i t h i t s w e a l t h , i s 
d e f e n d a n t , nor the f a c t o f the p o v e r t y o r f a m i l y d i s t r e s s of 
p l a i n t i f f 
... can be t a k e n i n t o the account by the j u r y , i n 
e s t i m a t i n g the amount of damages o r compensation 
w h i c h 
the 
c o u n t y ought t o pay p l a i n t i f f 
f o r s a i d i n j u r i e s . " 
48 A l a . a t 
569-70. 
In d o i n g so, the C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : 
"Damages, i t i s s a i d , are i n t e n d e d as a p e c u n i a r y 
compensation 
t o 
the 
p a r t y wronged 
f o r the 
h u r t 
i n f l i c t e d ; 
t o be g r e a t o r s m a l l , i n p r o p o r t i o n t o 
the i n j u r y i t s e l f . 
... 
And i t i s f o r the d i s a b l i n g 
10 
1120133 
e f f e c t s o f t h e i n j u r y , whether p a s t o r p r o s p e c t i v e , 
t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s 
e n t i t l e d t o compensation. 
... 
Then, t h e j u r y may 
c o n s i d e r t h e expenses o f t h e 
c u r e , and i f 
t h e i n j u r y i s i r r e m e d i a b l e , and w i l l 
n e c e s s a r i l y 
r e q u i r e 
f u t u r e t r e a t m e n t 
and n u r s i n g , 
the p r o b a b l e 
c o s t s o f t h i s , a l s o , may be added; so, 
l i k e w i s e , t h e l o s s o f time up t o t h e v e r d i c t , and 
the p r o b a b l e 
l o s s o f time i n t h e f u t u r e , and t h e 
p a i n i n f l i c t e d upon t h e 
body. 
... These a r e t h i n g s 
of v a l u e , 
c a p a b l e o f p e c u n i a r y 
admeasurement, and 
w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f l o s e s by t h e i n j u r y , o r t h e y a r e 
burdens 
imposed upon him by t h e conduct o f t h e 
[ d e f e n d a n t ] , 
a g a i n s t t h e e f f e c t s o f w h i c h he i s 
e n t i t l e d 
t o 
i n d e m n i t y , 
so f a r as a 
p e c u n i a r y 
compensation can a f f o r d i t . 
But t h e w e a l t h o f t h e 
d e f e n d a n t , o r p o v e r t y o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , has n o t h i n g 
t o do w i t h t h e i r a s c e r t a i n m e n t . 
I t 
was, t h e r e f o r e , 
improper t o admit e v i d e n c e o f t h e w e a l t h 
o f t h e 
d e f e n d a n t i n t h e c o u r t below t o go t o t h e j u r y , o r 
t o 
r e f u s e 
t o 
i n s t r u c t 
t h e j u r y , when 
p r o p e r l y 
r e q u e s t e d , 
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w e a l t h c o u l d n o t be 
t a k e n 
i n t o 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
i n making 
up 
t h e i r 
v e r d i c t . " 
48 A l a . a t 577-78 (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . 
See a l s o Ex p a r t e Hsu, 
707 So. 2d 223, 225 
( A l a . 1997) ( " A c c o r d i n g l y , we t u r n t o 
l o n g - s t a n d i n g Alabama law on t h e i s s u e o f a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f 
e v i d e n c e o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s w e a l t h . 
Under t h a t law, 'evidence 
of a d e f e n d a n t ' s w e a l t h i s 
h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l and, t h e r e f o r e , 
i n a d m i s s i b l e [ d u r i n g t r i a l ] . ' " 
( q u o t i n g Southern L i f e & H e a l t h  
I n s . Co. v. Whitman, 358 So. 2d 1025, 1026 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ) ) . 
Moreover, we have a l s o made i t 
c l e a r t h a t 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
are 
e n t i t l e d t o t h e same 
f a i r 
t r i a l 
an 
i n d i v i d u a l 
would 
11 
1120133 
r e c e i v e . 
I n C h r y s l e r Corp. v. H a s s e l l , 291 A l a . 267, 272-73, 
280 So. 2d 102, 106 (1973), we e x p l a i n e d t h i s p r i n c i p l e as 
f o l l o w s : 
" D u r i n g 
c l o s i n g 
argument, 
c o u n s e l 
f o r a p p e l l e e 
s t a t e d t o t h e j u r y : 
" ' T h i s i s 
what t h i s l a w s u i t i s about. 
L e t 
me 
t e l l 
you 
something 
about 
t h i s 
c o r p o r a t i o n , l a d y and gentlemen. They keep 
t a l k i n g about Mr. P r e u i t t , Mr. P r e u i t t , Mr. 
P r e u i t t . 
J i m P r e u i t t , as an i n d i v i d u a l , i s 
not 
b e i n g 
sued. 
We 
have 
g o t 
two 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
here 
i n t h i s 
case. 
J i m 
P r e u i t t 
C h r y s l e r 
C o r p o r a t i o n 
and t h e 
C h r y s l e r 
C o r p o r a t i o n i n D e t r o i t . 
Think 
j u s t a minute about what a c o r p o r a t i o n 
i s , 
i f you w i l l . 
"'You 
a r e p e o p l e , 
I am p e o p l e , Mr. 
H a s s e l l 
[the p l a i n t i f f ] 
i s p e o p l e . 
You 
have g o t b l o o d r u n n i n g t h r o u g h your v e i n s 
and you have g o t a h e a r t b e a t i n g . 
I f 
you 
s t i c k your f i n g e r , you b l e e d . One o f t h e s e 
days, i t 
may be tomorrow o r i t 
may be y e a r s 
from now, b u t you a r e e v e r y one g o i n g t o 
d i e . 
I'm g o i n g t o d i e and Mr. H a s s e l l i s 
g o i n g t o d i e . ' 
"Here, an o b j e c t i o n was 
o v e r r u l e d and e x c e p t i o n 
n o t e d : 
" ' [ A t t o r n e y f o r a p p e l l e e ] : 
And l a d y and 
gentlemen, when you d i e 
and when I d i e , we 
are g o i n g t o f a c e t h e same Maker. 
We a r e 
g o i n g t o answer f o r what we d i d on 
t h i s 
e a r t h . 
I'm g o i n g t o answer f o r what I d i d . 
L e t 
me 
t e l l 
you 
something, 
l a d y 
and 
gentlemen. 
A c o r p o r a t i o n has no h e a r t , 
i t 
12 
1120133 
has g o t no s o u l . 
I t has g o t no f e a r o f 
H e l l and Damnation i n t h e h e r e a f t e r . 
" ' [ A t t o r n e y 
f o r C h r y s l e r 
C o r p . ] : 
Your 
Honor, we o b j e c t t o t h a t , t h a t i s h i g h l y 
p r e j u d i c i a l , i t i s 
i n t e n d e d f o r t h e purpose 
of 
making 
t h i s 
j u r y 
b e l i e v e 
t h a t t h e 
s t a n d a r d 
o f 
j u s t i c e 
i s 
d i f f e r e n t f o r 
c o r p o r a t i o n s and a p e r s o n . 
"'[The c o u r t ] : I t 
i s 
s u s t a i n e d . 
The c o u r t 
f e e l s t h a t i s 
f a r a f i e l d . ' 
" T h i s argument was improper, h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l 
and was n o t r e l e v a n t t o any i s s u e s i n t h e case. 
A 
c o r p o r a t i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o f a i r and e q u a l 
t r e a t m e n t 
i f i t 
i s 
a p a r t y t o l i t i g a t i o n . 
I n Commercial F i r e  
I n s . Co. v. A l l e n , 80 A l a . 571, 1 So. 202 
[ ( 1 8 8 7 ) ] , 
t h i s c o u r t , p e r Stone, C.J., h e l d t h a t a 
r e f e r e n c e 
t o t h e d e f e n d a n t as ' t h i s s o u l l e s s c o r p o r a t i o n ' i n 
c o n c l u d i n g argument o f c o u n s e l was 
' o b j e c t i o n a b l e , 
and t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t a r r e s t i n g t h a t 
l i n e o f 
argument, when t h e r e t o 
r e q u e s t e d . ' " 
See 
a l s o Boone v. S t a t e , 170 A l a . 57, 62, 54 So. 109, 110 
(1911) ("The f o u r t e e n t h amendment p r o v i d e s t h a t no s t a t e s h a l l 
'deny t o any p e r s o n 
w i t h i n 
i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n 
t h e 
e q u a l 
p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e l a w s . ' 
That c o r p o r a t i o n s a r e 
p e r s o n s w i t h i n 
the 
meaning 
o f 
t h i s 
amendment 
i s no 
l o n g e r 
open 
t o 
d i s c u s s i o n . " ) . 
Thus, i t would be improper f o r 
a j u r y t o h o l d 
the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r t o a d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d o f j u s t i c e 
than t h e s t a n d a r d t o w h i c h i t h e l d B e n n e t t m e r e l y because t h e 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r i s 
a c o r p o r a t i o n , and i t would l i k e w i s e 
13 
1120133 
be improper f o r us t o assume t h a t a j u r y would e x h i b i t such 
p r e j u d i c e . 
The amount o f any s e t t l e m e n t 
i n l i t i g a t i o n i s 
presumably based l a r g e l y on t h e e x p e c t e d amount of t h e v e r d i c t 
t h a t might be r e t u r n e d i f a c l a i m were t o p r o c e e d t o 
t r i a l , 
and, were we t o a c c e p t Hand's argument t h a t t h e Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r ' s i n c l u s i o n as a d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s case would have 
r e s u l t e d i n a h i g h e r 
s e t t l e m e n t , 
we would 
e f f e c t i v e l y 
be 
making t h a t assumption o f p r e j u d i c e . 
We d e c l i n e t o do so. 
A l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s have not i d e n t i f i e d Alabama c a s e l a w 
d i r e c t l y 
on 
p o i n t , 
t h e 
S u p e r i o r 
C o u r t 
of 
P e n n s y l v a n i a 
c o n s i d e r e d 
a s i m i l a r case i n S c h e n k e l v. Monheit, 266 Pa. 
Super. 396, 405 A.2d 493 (1979). 
The S c h e n k e l c o u r t d e s c r i b e d 
the f a c t s b e f o r e i t 
as f o l l o w s : 
" B r i e f l y s t a t e d , these a r e t h e f a c t s upon w h i c h 
the 
i n s t a n t case i s based. 
On J a n u a r y 9, 1969, 
a p p e l l a n t 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 when 
h i s 
v e h i c l e was s t r u c k from b e h i n d by a c a r d r i v e n 
by one C h a r l e s Salem. 
A p p e l l a n t t h e r e a f t e r r e t a i n e d 
a p p e l l e e as h i s a t t o r n e y t o p r o s e c u t e 
a p p e l l a n t ' s 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n a g a i n s t Salem. 
When a p p e l l e e 
f i l e d 
t h i s a c t i o n , he d i d not j o i n Salem's employer, Wintz 
B r o t h e r s 
C o n s t r u c t i o n 
Company, 
as 
d e f e n d a n t s . 
A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t , 
Salem was 'on the j o b ' and was w i t h i n t h e scope of 
h i s 
employment 
f o r Wintz B r o t h e r s 
and t h a t W i n t z 
B r o t h e r s 
s h o u l d 
have been 
j o i n e d as 
d e f e n d a n t s . 
A p p e l l a n t ' s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h a p p e l l e e ' s h a n d l i n g 
of 
t h e p e r s o n a l 
i n j u r y 
a c t i o n l e d a p p e l l a n t 
t o 
14 
1120133 
d i s m i s s 
a p p e l l e e 
b e f o r e 
t r i a l 
and r e t a i n 
o t h e r 
c o u n s e l t o complete t h e c a s e . " 
266 Pa. Super. a t 397-98, 405 A.2d a t 493. The a p p e l l a n t was 
awarded $9,500 by a j u r y i n h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t Salem. 
He 
t h e r e a f t e r 
f i l e d 
a 
l e g a l - m a l p r a c t i c e 
a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t t h e 
a p p e l l e e , 
a l l e g i n g 
t h a t t h e j u r y would have awarded him a 
l a r g e r v e r d i c t i n 
h i s p e r s o n a l - i n j u r y a c t i o n i f 
t h e c o r p o r a t e 
employer had been j o i n e d as a d e f e n d a n t . 
The 
P e n n s y l v a n i a 
c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h i s argument, 
s t a t i n g : 
" I n a p p e l l a n t ' s case, t h e f a i l u r e t o j o i n t h e 
c o r p o r a t e 
employer 
s h o u l d 
n o t 
have 
a f f e c t e d 
a p p e l l a n t ' s damages. 
The t o r t was t h e 
same i n t h i s 
case, whether o r n o t t h e c o r p o r a t e employer was a 
p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . The a c t u a l t o r t f e a s o r , Salem, 
was made a d e f e n d a n t ; t h e c o r p o r a t e employer would 
o n l y a r g u a b l y be l i a b l e under agency p r i n c i p l e s , n o t 
as an i n d e p e n d e n t 
t o r t f e a s o r . 
J o i n d e r 
o f t h e 
c o r p o r a t e employer would s i m p l y have i n c r e a s e d t h e 
number o f p a r t i e s 
a g a i n s t whom 
a p p e l l a n t 
c o u l d 
e n f o r c e any judgment he r e c e i v e d . " 
266 Pa. Super. a t 400, 405 A.2d a t 494. 
T h i s 
r a t i o n a l e 
a p p l i e s i n 
t h e i n s t a n t case as w e l l . 
The " t o r t was t h e 
same" 
whether o r not t h e Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r was a p a r t y t o 
t h e 
a c t i o n , and 
t h e s e t t l e m e n t Hand a g r e e d t o 
was i n f a c t p a i d by 
the 
Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r ' s 
i n s u r e r ; 
t h u s , 
t h e r e 
i s no 
e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Hand was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e f a i l u r e t o 
name t h e 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r as a d e f e n d a n t . N o t a b l y , 
t h i s 
15 
1120133 
i s 
not 
a case i n w h i c h the 
p l a i n t i f f 
was 
u n a b l e t o 
o b t a i n 
s a t i s f a c t i o n 
of 
a 
judgment 
or 
t o 
o b t a i n 
a 
m e a n i n g f u l 
s e t t l e m e n t 
based 
on 
the 
judgment-proof 
s t a t u s 
of 
the 
d e f e n d a n t ; 
i t appears 
t o 
be 
u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t 
B e n n e t t 
was 
c o v e r e d by the $5,000,000 T r a v e l e r s p o l i c y h e l d by Gannett and 
t h a t most 
of 
the 
funds 
f o r Hand's 
s e t t l e m e n t 
were 
p a i d 
p u r s u a n t t o t h a t p o l i c y . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s mere s p e c u l a t i o n 
t o assume t h a t e i t h e r the s e t t l e m e n t or any j u r y v e r d i c t would 
have been h i g h e r 
i f the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r were a named 
d e f e n d a n t i n Hand's a c t i o n a g a i n s t B e n n e t t . 
T h i s C o u r t 
has 
p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d t h a t i t w i l l not s p e c u l a t e 
as t o a j u r y ' s 
r a t i o n a l e f o r r e a c h i n g a v e r d i c t ; f o r s i m i l a r r e a s o n s , we 
w i l l 
not s p e c u l a t e as t o what v e r d i c t a j u r y might have r e a c h e d i n 
a c e r t a i n case i f t h a t case had not been s e t t l e d and 
i f the 
r o s t e r of d e f e n d a n t s had been augmented.
1 
See, 
e.g., 
C l a y t o n 
 
v. LLB Timber Co., 
70 So. 3d 283, 288 
( A l a . 2011) 
("We 
d e c l i n e 
t o s p e c u l a t e t h a t the j u r y r e a c h e d i t s v e r d i c t s o l e l y on 
the 
^Moreover, 
a l t h o u g h 
Hand 
argues 
t h a t 
he 
u l t i m a t e l y 
r e c e i v e d l e s s i n h i s s e t t l e m e n t 
($625,000) than he s u f f e r e d i n 
a c t u a l damage 
($872,500) 
and 
t h a t 
t h i s 
was 
a 
r e s u l t 
of 
c o u n s e l ' s 
f a i l u r e 
t o name the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r 
as 
a 
d e f e n d a n t , i t b e a r s emphasis t h a t i t was 
u l t i m a t e l y Hand's 
d e c i s i o n t o s e t t l e h i s case and not p r e s e n t 
e v i d e n c e of h i s 
damage t o a j u r y . 
16 
1120133 
b a s i s 
of 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t 
[the 
a p p e l l a n t ] 
was 
m a l i n g e r i n g . " ) . 
IV. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d 
a summary judgment i n f a v o r of 
R o b e r t s and the H o w e l l f i r m i n Hand's a c t i o n a l l e g i n g t h a t 
t h e y had committed l e g a l m a l p r a c t i c e w h i l e r e p r e s e n t i n g him i n 
h i s 
a c t i o n a g a i n s t 
B e n n e t t . 
Because t h e r e 
i s no 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g , but o n l y s p e c u l a t i o n , t h a t Hand would have been 
a b l e t o s e t t l e h i s i n j u r y c l a i m f o r a h i g h e r amount i f R o b e r t s 
and the H o w e l l f i r m had a l s o named the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r 
as a d e f e n d a n t , t h a t judgment i s hereby a f f i r m e d . 
A l l o t h e r 
arguments 
r a i s e d by the p a r t i e s on a p p e a l are 
a c c o r d i n g l y 
p r e t e r m i t t e d . 
AFFIRMED. 
Moore, C.J., and B o l i n and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . 
Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s i n the 
r e s u l t . 
P a r k e r , Shaw, and Main, J J . , d i s s e n t . 
17 
1120133 
MURDOCK, 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 ) . 
The p i v o t a l p o i n t i n the main o p i n i o n appears t o be the 
f o l l o w i n g passage: 
"The 
' t o r t 
was 
the 
same' 
whether 
or 
not 
the 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r was a p a r t y t o the a c t i o n , and 
the 
s e t t l e m e n t 
[Tommy] Hand a g r e e d t o was 
i n f a c t 
p a i d by the Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r ' s i n s u r e r ; 
t h u s , 
t h e r e 
i s no 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 
Hand 
was 
p r e j u d i c e d by the 
f a i l u r e 
t o name the Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r as a d e f e n d a n t . " 
So. 3d a t 
. I agree w i t h the f i r s t s t a t e m e n t i n c l u d e d i n 
t h i s 
passage 
( b e f o r e 
the 
s e m i c o l o n ) , 
but 
not 
the 
l a t t e r 
s t a t e m e n t . 
As a m a t t e r of law, however, I b e l i e v e we must 
c o n s i d e r the l a t t e r s t a t e m e n t t o be i n a p p o s i t e . 
As the main o p i n i o n a p t l y n o t e s : 
"[W]e must presume t h a t 
j u r i e s w i l l f o l l o w the law, ... and i t has l o n g been t h e law 
i n t h i s S t a t e t h a t a j u r y must c a l c u l a t e damages based on the 
e v i d e n c e of i n j u r y , not the i d e n t i t y of the d e f e n d a n t and h i s 
or 
h e r presumed 
w e a l t h . " 
So. 
3d 
a t 
. 
Here, 
the 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
a c t u a l damage i s the same r e g a r d l e s s of who i s 
named as a d e f e n d a n t . 
F u r t h e r , f o r a l l t h a t appears from the 
r e c o r d i n t h i s case w i t h 
r e s p e c t 
t o t h e 
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a 
$5,000,000 l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y , the named d e f e n d a n t i s as 
f u l l y 
a b l e t o pay a judgment f o r the p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t u a l damages as 
18 
1120133 
would be 
any 
o t h e r d e f e n d a n t . 
As 
the main o p i n i o n 
s t a t e s : 
"'[T]he f a i l u r e t o j o i n the c o r p o r a t e employer s h o u l d not have 
a f f e c t e d a p p e l l a n t ' s damages'" r e s u l t i n g from a 
t r i a l . 
So. 
3d a t 
( q u o t i n g S c h e n k e l v. Monheit, 266 
Pa. 
Super. 
396, 
400, 
405 
A.2d 
493, 
494 
(1979) 
(emphasis a d d e d ) ) . 
In 
l i g h t of the f o r e g o i n g , even i f i t would not be 
(as the main 
o p i n i o n a s s e r t s ) "mere s p e c u l a t i o n t o assume" t h a t a 
h i g h e r 
s e t t l e m e n t 
would 
have 
been 
r e a c h e d 
i f 
the 
Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r had been named as a d e f e n d a n t , we must c o n s i d e r 
any 
such d i f f e r e n c e t o be a f u n c t i o n of the v o l u n t a r y c h o i c e 
by 
the 
p l a i n t i f f , Tommy Hand, t o 
r e s o l v e 
h i s case t h r o u g h 
a 
s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e s s r a t h e r than p r o c e e d i n g 
t o 
t r i a l . 
In 
a d d i t i o n , even 
i f i t would 
not 
be 
s p e c u l a t i o n 
t o 
assume t h a t a h i g h e r s e t t l e m e n t would have been r e a c h e d i f the 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r had been named as a d e f e n d a n t , i t seems 
beyond 
p e r a d v e n t u r e 
t o 
me 
t h a t 
i t would 
a t 
l e a s t 
be 
s p e c u l a t i o n as t o how much h i g h e r 
the s e t t l e m e n t would have 
been. 
A g a i n , however, even i f t h i s were not t r u e , i t would be 
improper f o r the r e a s o n s n o t e d above and i n the main o p i n i o n 
f o r 
t h i s C o u r t t o base i t s d e c i s i o n i n a case such as t h i s 
on 
the n o t i o n t h a t a d i f f e r e n t s e t t l e m e n t was a c h i e v e d because of 
19 
1120133 
the p r o s p e c t t h a t a d i f f e r e n t judgment f o r a c t u a l damage would 
have been awarded i n a 
t r i a l 
a g a i n s t a d i f f e r e n t 
type o f 
d e f e n d a n t , a t l e a s t where t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e shown i n t h e 
a b i l i t y of t h e p l a i n t i f f t o c o l l e c t such a judgment. 
20 
1120133 
SHAW, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t . 
The main o p i n i o n 
s t a t e s 
t h a t 
t h e r e i s 
no e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f , Tommy 
Hand, "was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e f a i l u r e t o 
name t h e 
Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r as 
a d e f e n d a n t " and 
t h a t " i t 
i s mere s p e c u l a t i o n t o 
assume t h a t e i t h e r t h e s e t t l e m e n t o r any j u r y v e r d i c t would 
have been h i g h e r 
i f t h e 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r were a named 
d e f e n d a n t i n 
Hand's a c t i o n a g a i n s t 
[ J u l i e ] B e n n e t t . " 
So. 
3d a t 
. I d i s a g r e e 
t h a t such assumptions would be "mere 
s p e c u l a t i o n , " 
because 
t h e 
r e c o r d 
b e f o r e 
us 
c o n t a i n s 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u b s t a n t i a t e b o t h . 
A l t h o u g h I agree t h a t we cannot assume t h a t a j u r y would 
have awarded Hand more damages s i m p l y because o f the p r e s e n c e 
of t h e 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r as a d e f e n d a n t , as n o t e d i n t h e 
main o p i n i o n t h e r e i s 
e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Hand's a c t u a l 
damage amounted t o a t l e a s t $872,500. 
T h i s 
e v i d e n c e , i f 
b e l i e v e d by a j u r y a t t r i a l , would have r e s u l t e d i n 
a " j u r y 
v e r d i c t ... h i g h e r " than t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t 
amount. 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e j u r y would have 
awarded 
more 
damages 
than 
t h e amount 
a c h i e v e d 
i n 
t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t i s 
o f 
no consequence. 
I n s t e a d , 
t h e r e i s 
e v i d e n c e 
21 
1120133 
h e r e , t h r o u g h t h e a f f i d a v i t s o f Hand's a t t o r n e y s , i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t t h e s e t t l e m e n t 
v a l u e 
of t h e c a s e , had t h e Montgomery 
A d v e r t i s e r been named as a p a r t y , would have amounted t o 
between $1 and $1.2 m i l l i o n , w h i c h i s more than the a c t u a l 
s e t t l e m e n t amount. 
I see n o t h i n g i n t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e us 
l e a d i n g me t o c a l l 
i n t o q u e s t i o n 
t h o s e a f f i d a v i t s . 
I thus 
b e l i e v e , 
c o n t r a r y 
t o the main 
o p i n i o n , 
t h a 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 " i n d i c a t i n g ... t h a t Hand would have been 
a b l e t o s e t t l e h i s i n j u r y c l a i m f o r a h i g h e r amount i f ... t h e 
Montgomery A d v e r t i s e r [had a l s o been named] as a d e f e n d a n t . " 
So. 3d a t 
. I would thus address t h e r e m a i n i n g 
i s s u e s 
p u r p o r t e d l y s u p p o r t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary judgment b u t 
the d i s c u s s i o n of w h i c h t h e main o p i n i o n says i s p r e t e r m i t t e d . 
22