Title: Shannon v. Smith
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1180926
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 15, 2020

REL: May 15, 2020
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2019-2020
____________________
1180926
____________________
Deborah K. Shannon
v.
Jenna Kathryn Smith
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-17-902307)
MITCHELL, Justice.
Deborah K. Shannon suffers from ongoing medical problems
that she claims are the result of an automobile accident.  The
jury that considered the claims she asserted against the other
driver rejected her claims and returned a verdict in favor of
1180926
the other driver.  After the trial court denied her motion for
a new trial, Shannon appealed, arguing that the jury's verdict
was not sustained by the preponderance of the evidence. 
Because there was adequate evidence to support the verdict, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On February 20, 2016, Shannon stopped at a red light on
U.S. Highway 280 in Birmingham.  Jenna Kathryn Smith stopped
behind her.  When the light turned green and traffic began to
move, Smith's cell phone fell down by her feet.  As she
reached down to pick it up, she rear-ended Shannon's vehicle
while her eyes were off the road.  Shannon claims that she
suffers neck and shoulder pain as a result of the accident, as
well as vertigo and migraines.  Shannon was treated by a
chiropractor and an acupuncturist and received multiple
surgical interventions to manage her pain.
On June 7, 2017, Shannon sued Smith in the Jefferson
Circuit Court, alleging negligence and wantonness and seeking
compensatory damages, special damages, and punitive damages. 
A jury trial was held on June 17 and 18, 2019, and Shannon
asked the jury to award her $47,374.24 in medical expenses,
2
1180926
compensatory damages for pain and suffering and permanent
injuries, and punitive damages.  Smith did not deny that she
was at fault in the accident, but she contested whether
Shannon's injuries were the result of the accident.  The jury
returned a verdict in favor of Smith on both the negligence
and wantonness counts.  Shannon moved for a new trial, arguing
that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the
evidence.  The trial court denied the motion.  Shannon
appealed.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court's denial of a motion for a new
trial for an excess of discretion.  Colbert County-Northwest
Alabama Healthcare Auth. v. Nix, 678 So. 2d 719, 722 (Ala.
1995).
"'[T]he denial of a motion for a new trial [on the
ground that the verdict is against the weight and
preponderance of the evidence] will not be reversed
by this Court unless, after allowing all reasonable
presumptions as to the verdict's correctness, the
preponderance of the evidence is so against it that
this Court is clearly convinced that it is wrong and
unjust.'"
Med Plus Props. v. Colcock Constr. Grp., Inc., 628 So. 2d 370,
374 (Ala. 1993) (quoting Deal v. Johnson, 362 So. 2d 214, 218
(Ala. 1978) (second alteration added in Med Plus)).
3
1180926
Analysis
To establish both negligence and wantonness, a plaintiff
must prove that her injuries were caused by the defendant.
"'To establish negligence, the plaintiff must
prove: (1) a duty to a foreseeable plaintiff; (2) a
breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and
(4) damage or injury.  Albert v. Hsu, 602 So. 2d
895, 897 (Ala. 1992).  To establish wantonness, the
plaintiff must prove that the defendant, with
reckless 
indifference 
to 
the 
consequences,
consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act
or omitted some known duty.  To be actionable, that
act or omission must proximately cause the injury of
which the plaintiff complains.  Smith v. Davis, 599
So. 2d 586 (Ala. 1992).'"
Lemley v. Wilson, 178 So. 3d 834, 841-42 (Ala. 2015) (quoting
Martin v. Arnold, 643 So. 2d 564, 567 (Ala. 1994) (emphasis
omitted)).
Credible evidence was presented at trial indicating that
Shannon's injuries predated the February 2016 automobile
accident and that her 
negligence and wantonness claims against
Smith were therefore meritless.  Dr. Phillip Langer treated
Shannon's shoulder injuries and testified that those injuries
could have been caused by an automobile accident.  Smith
rebutted this evidence by showing that Shannon had not
disclosed her past participation in the Atlanta Axe Throwing
4
1180926
League to Dr. Langer and that her shoulder injuries were also
consistent with injuries caused by axe throwing.
Dr. Armin Vatani Oskouei treated Shannon's neck injuries
and testified about efforts to treat her ongoing neck and
shoulder pain, as well as the fact that her injuries were
consistent with an automobile accident.  Smith rebutted this
testimony by pointing out that Dr. Oskouei's testimony about
injuries caused in automobile accidents seemed to assume a
much more serious collision than the collision that actually
took place and that he knew very little about Shannon's prior
medical history or developments after the short period in
which she received treatment at his practice.
In addition, Smith rebutted Shannon's allegation that her
ongoing dizziness and migraines were the result of the
automobile accident by introducing a record from an urgent-
care facility in Georgia showing that Shannon was treated for
those symptoms on July 22, 2015, almost seven months before
the accident.  And she impeached Shannon's testimony on
several 
occasions 
by 
highlighting 
inconsistencies 
in 
Shannon's
statements about her participation in axe throwing and her
prior treatment for vertigo.
5
1180926
Based on this record, the jury was entitled to believe
Smith's evidence and to disbelieve Shannon's -- and the jury
apparently did so.  The trial court subsequently acted within
its discretion in denying Shannon's motion for a new trial.
Conclusion
Because Smith presented credible evidence at trial that
Shannon's injuries 
predated 
the 
automobile 
accident, 
the 
trial
court acted within its discretion when it denied Shannon's
motion for a new trial.  Its judgment is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, J., concur.
Bryan and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result.
6