Title: Mildred McDonald v. Springhill Medical Complex, Inc. et al. (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-11-237). Affirmed. No Opinion.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1111625
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 2013

Rel.:5/31/2013 
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) 
2 2 9 - 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 
1111625 
Mildred McDonald 
v. 
S p r i n g h i l l Medical Complex, Inc., 
e t a l . 
Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-11-237) 
MAIN, J u s t i c e . 
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. 
Moore, C.J., 
and S t u a r t , 
B o l i n , 
P a r k e r , 
Murdock, and 
Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 
Shaw and 
B r y a n , J J . , concur i n 
p a r t and 
d i s s e n t i n p a r t . 
1111625 
SHAW, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . 
M i l d r e d McDonald t r i p p e d and f e l l on the s i d e w a l k on the 
p r e m i s e s 
of Alabama O r t h o p a e d i c 
C l i n i c , 
P.C. 
("AOC"). 
She 
sued 
v a r i o u s 
e n t i t i e s 
t h a t 
a l l e g e d l y 
owned, 
l e a s e d , 
m a i n t a i n e d , or o p e r a t e d the f a c i l i t i e s and p r o p e r t y where the 
s i d e w a l k was 
l o c a t e d 
( h e r e i n a f t e r "the d e f e n d a n t s " ) , s e e k i n g 
damages 
f o r n e g l i g e n c e and 
wantonness. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d a summary judgment f o r the d e f e n d a n t s , and McDonald 
a p p e a l s . 
" ' " 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 of 
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 o f 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 o f 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 
t h e 
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 the 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 
t h e n 
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 of m a t e r i a l f a c t . 
Bass  
v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n County, 
53 
8 
So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1989); A l a . Code 
2 
1111625 
1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ 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 w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t 
f a i r - m i n d e d 
p e r s o n s 
i n t h e 
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 t h e 
e x i s t e n c e of t h e f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d . ' 
West v. Founders L i f e A s s u r . Co. of F l a . , 
547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989)."' 
" P r i n c e v. P o o l e , 
935 So. 2d 431, 442 ( A l a . 2006) 
( q u o t i n g 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 . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . " 
Brown v. W.P. Media, I n c . , 17 So. 3d 1167, 1169 ( A l a . 
2009) 
. 
I concur w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s n o - o p i n i o n a f f i r m a n c e o f t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s summary judgment as t o McDonald's wantonness 
c l a i m . 
As t o t h e c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were 
n e g l i g e n t , 
I b e l i e v e 
t h a t 
McDonald 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 
c r e a t i n g a genuine 
i s s u e 
of m a t e r i a l 
f a c t 
t h a t 
p r e c l u d e d a summary judgment on t h a t 
c l a i m . 
McDonald a l l e g e s t h a t she t r i p p e d on a j o i n t between t h e 
s i d e w a l k and a h a n d i c a p - a c c e s s ramp and f e l l . 
A p p a r e n t l y , t h e 
ramp was 
i n s t a l l e d i n 2005 i n t h e e x i s t i n g 
s i d e w a l k . 
She 
t e s t i f i e d i n h e r d e p o s i t i o n t h a t h e r f o o t h i t 
something on t h e 
s i d e w a l k 
i n t h e approximate a r e a o f t h e j o i n t between t h e 
s i d e w a l k 
and 
t h e 
ramp, 
c a u s i n g 
h e r 
t o 
t r i p 
and 
f a l l . 
McDonald's grandson, who was p r e s e n t when she f e l l , 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e i n e l e v a t i o n a t t h e j o i n t between 
3 
1111625 
the o l d s i d e w a l k and the added ramp. 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , McDonald 
p r e s e n t e d 
a f f i d a v i t t e s t i m o n y from an e x p e r t , Harvey G a n d l e r , 
a l i c e n s e d a r c h i t e c t , who 
had examined the j o i n t and who 
a l s o 
s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was 
a d i f f e r e n c e i n e l e v a t i o n a t the 
p o i n t 
where the s i d e w a l k 
and the ramp j o i n e d , r e s u l t i n g i n a drop¬
o f f i n s t e a d of a s l o p e . 
G a n d l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s change i n 
e l e v a t i o n d i d not comply w i t h the Americans w i t h 
D i s a b i l i t i e s 
A c t ;
1 t h a t i t was 
a " t o e - c a t c h e r " t h a t was 
"not something t h a t 
i s o b v i o u s or n o t i c e a b l e t o an average p e r s o n w a l k i n g on 
the 
s i d e w a l k " ; t h a t i t c o u l d not be seen by someone w a l k i n g toward 
the AOC 
b u i l d i n g and 
was 
not 
" o b s e r v a b l e " 
t o t h o s e 
w a l k i n g 
from the b u i l d i n g i f t h e y were not l o o k i n g f o r i t or were not 
l o o k i n g toward the ground; t h a t t h e r e was 
no marking t o 
c a l l 
a t t e n t i o n 
t o 
the 
change i n e l e v a t i o n ; t h a t 
the 
change 
i n 
e l e v a t i o n was 
not 
so h i g h 
as 
t o 
c a s t 
a shadow a c r o s s 
the 
j o i n t ; t h a t the f a c t i t was 
l o c a t e d a t a h a n d i c a p - a c c e s s ramp 
a t an o r t h o p e d i c 
c l i n i c i n c r e a s e d the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t the 
a r e a 
would be f r e q u e n t e d by p e o p l e w i t h m o b i l i t y problems, who 
are 
more a t r i s k of t r i p p i n g over a change i n e l e v a t i o n ; and 
t h a t 
142 U.S.C. § 12101 
e t 
seq. 
4 
1111625 
i t 
was 
h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l 
o p i n i o n 
t h a t 
t h e 
s i d e w a l k 
was 
d e f e c t i v e and dangerous t o AOC p a t i e n t s l i k e McDonald. 
I b e l i e v e t h a t , when v i e w e d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o 
McDonald, 
the 
r e c o r d 
i n c l u d e s 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h e 
e x i s t e n c e of f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s 
as t o whether t h e d e f e n d a n t s 
were n e g l i g e n t and as t o whether t h e j o i n t 
c r e a t e d a danger 
t h a t was not open and o b v i o u s . 
I t h u s r e s p e c t f u l l y 
d i s s e n t 
from the n o - o p i n i o n a f f i r m a n c e o f t h e summary judgment as t o 
McDonald's n e g l i g e n c e 
c l a i m . 
B r y a n , J . , c o n c u r s . 
5