Title: Garner v. Walker
Citation: 577 So. 2d 1276
Docket Number: 1900292
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 22, 1991

577 So. 2d 1276 (1991)
Donnie Ray GARNER and Glenda Ann Garner
v.
Carl WALKER, et al.
1900292.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 22, 1991.
Julia McCain Lampkin Asam, Northport, for appellants.
Gordon Davis, Tuscaloosa, for appellees CH &amp; W Excavating Co., Carl Walker, Betty Walker and Raiford Poe Logging.
HOUSTON, Justice.
The plaintiffs appeal from a dismissal of their complaint. The defendantsCH &amp; W Excavating Company, Carl Walker, Betty Walker, and Raiford Poe Logginghad moved to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs, Donnie Ray Garner and Glenda Ann Garner, had failed to properly amend their complaint. The trial court's final judgment of dismissal reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Garners contend that the trial court erroneously dismissed as to Count 2 (trespass) and Count 3 (nuisance).
The well settled law in Alabama as it relates to the standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss is set forth in Seals v. City of Columbia, 575 So. 2d 1061 (Ala. 1991), quoting from Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So. 2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985):
(Emphasis in original.)
The defendants contend that the trial court correctly dismissed the Garners' *1277 amended complaint. They contend that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action against the defendants on the theory of nuisance or trespass by the hauling of logs by Raiford Poe Logging or the hauling of gravel by CH &amp; W Excavating Company, Carl Walker, and Betty Walker, causing dust emissions or micro-particulates to be deposited on the Garners' property as the defendants' trucks operated along the access strip of land in question. The defendants also contend that the amended complaint failed to allege any facts that would support a verdict against any of the defendants.
Although the Garners' brief at times is somewhat difficult to follow, it appears that they are arguing that the trial court prematurely entered judgment for the defendants as a matter of law. They contend that their amended complaint was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the trial court, therefore, erroneously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. We agree.
Counts 2 and 3 of the amended complaint read as follows:
These allegations were sufficient under our rules of notice pleading to put the defendants on notice of the claims against them.
Sanders v. Judson College, 514 So. 2d 890, 891-92 (Ala.1987), quoted as authority in Seals v. City of Columbia, supra. (Emphasis in original.)
We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the Garners can prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief; therefore, the judgment is due to be, and it is hereby, reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.