Opinion ID: 1751995
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Verdict in favor of the City and the Utilities Board on the negligence claim

Text: With respect to the City and the Utilities Board, the jury found Hanson and Oldcastle liable for negligence but awarded no damages. The City and the Utilities Board argue that this verdict is inconsistent and requires a new trial. We agree. Damages are an essential element of the tort of negligence. `[P]roof of damage [is] an essential part of the plaintiff's case.' Ex parte Stonebrook Dev., L.L.C., 854 So.2d 584, 589 (Ala.2003)(quoting Matthews Bros. Constr. Co. v. Stonebrook Dev., L.L.C., 854 So.2d 573, 578 (Ala. Civ.App.2001), quoting in turn William C. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 30 (4th ed.1971)). As a result, a finding that a defendant is liable to a plaintiff for negligence is inconsistent with an award of no damages. The jury's finding for each of the Plaintiffs, which is clear and unequivocal, necessarily embraced all of the elements of the tort claim, including the element of injury and resultant damages. To so find, and then award no damages, is inconsistent on its face as a matter of law. . . . . [This] compels a decision that the trial court should have afforded Appellants a new trial on the basis of the inadequacy of the award, or, as we see it, the inconsistency of the award of no damages, when such award is juxtaposed with the jury's finding of Defendants' liability. Stinson v. Acme Propane Gas Co., 391 So.2d 659, 661 (Ala.1980); accord Thompson v. Cooper, 551 So.2d 1030, 1030 (Ala. 1989); Moore v. Clark, 548 So.2d 1352 (Ala.1989); and Clements v. Lanley Heat Processing Equip., 548 So.2d 1345 (Ala. 1989). Hanson and Oldcastle do not concede that the verdict for the City and the Utilities Board was inconsistent. However, they fail to present any substantial argument that this Court should not apply the Alabama rule on inconsistent verdicts in this case. Instead, in their argument they assume an inconsistent verdict but maintain that the inconsistency does not require reversal. The focus of Hanson and Oldcastle's argument that the verdict does not require a reversal is that the City and the Utilities Board either 1) invited the error of an inconsistent verdict, 2) consented to the inconsistent verdict, or 3) waived their right to challenge the verdict. Immediately following the verdict, the trial court noted the possibility that the verdict was inconsistent. The parties and the court then discussed how the verdict could be corrected. This began with the following exchange: Trial court: On the two verdict forms to the City of Opelika and the Utilit[ies] Board where they found in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded zero [damages], I would consider that an award of nominal damages. Do you want any clarification form the jury on that point? Mr. Vercelli [counsel for the City and the Utilities Board]: I think it's inconsistent to award nothing and find them liable. I think nominal damages should have been awarded. So, yes.  (Emphasis added.) At this point, it is clear that counsel for the City and the Utilities Board wanted clarification from the jury on the inconsistent verdict. The colloquy continues: Trial court: Well, what I am asking is: Do y'all agreethatthat's what I would think. I canI can come back and recharge them on the nominal damage[s] charge that was presented by Hanson andand just see what they come up with, or I can just plain ask them if that was your intent in front of everyone. Or y'all can just accept it as an award of nominal damages andjust let them go. Mr. Byram [defense counsel]: We are satisfied. Mr. Adams [defense counsel]: Satisfied. Mr. Denson [defense counsel]: Satisfied. Mr. Vercelli: Which means what? Trial court: That they are agreeing that it's an award for nominal damages. I mean, essentially it would be the same thing as saying they awarded one dollar. Mr. Vercelli: Is that what the defendants are saying? That they agree it would be the same as awarding a dollar? Mr. Adams: Well, what is thewhat is the Plaintiffs' response, Your Honor, to the verdict? I don't know that there is a procedure by which the Defendant gets to be asked questions by Plaintiffs' counsel. Trial court: Well, there isthere is Mr. Adams: We are saying that we are satisfied with the verdict andas recorded and as explained by the Court. Trial court: All right. Mr. Vercelli: It appears to me to be an inconsistent verdict. I don't see how they can award zero and find them at fault and then award nothing.  (Emphasis added.) It is clear that to this point, the City and the Utilities Board have not invited the court to do anything, consented to the verdict, or waived any objection to the verdict. The colloquy then turned to whether the jury's verdict was based on a finding of nuisance or of negligence. Defense counsel stated that the jury had found that the quarry created a nuisance. In fact, the jury had indicated by special interrogatory that its verdict was based on negligence. Mr. Byram: It's a claim for public nuisance. Trial court: Well, that would be my interpretation, that they found that the burden of proof was met; they just didn't award any damages. . . . Mr. Vercelli: So that is a finding of public nuisance; we would be satisfied with nominal damages. Trial court: Okay. If y'all are satisfied, I will bring [the jury] back in and let them go. Here, the City and the Utilities Board agreed that the verdict could be interpreted as one awarding nominal damages, and therefore valid, but only if it was based on a theory of nuisance. Hanson and Oldcastle argue that the City and the Utilities Board then chose to accept the verdict and prompted the court to accept the verdicts and discharge the jury. The record, however, does not support this conclusion. The conference continues: Mr. Vercelli: Smith and Schwieker appear inconsistent.[ [4] ] I guess negligence is what it is. Trial court: Hum? Mr. Adams: That's a verdict on negligence. Mr. Vercelli: We will talk about it post-trial. Trial court: Yes, I mean Mr. Adams: That's a verdict on the negligence Mr. Byram: Yes, I would. I may have misspoke, too. It's the negligence one that's checked here. Mr. Adams:theory, Your Honor. Trial court: Correct. Mr. Adams: That's right. Trial court: Okay. Bring [the jury] in. At that point, the trial court discharged the jury. Contrary to Hanson and Oldcastle's assertion, the City and the Utilities Board did not express satisfaction with an inconsistent verdict on their negligence claim. Nor did they prompt the trial court to discharge the jury. The record indicates that counsel for the City and the Utilities Board, defense counsel, and the trial court all understood that if the verdict was based on negligence (as opposed to nuisance), it was inconsistent, and some corrective action was necessary. The trial court suggested three ways to resolve the inconsistency: 1) recharge the jury, 2) poll the jury in open court, or 3) have the parties agree to treat the verdict as one for nominal damages. The trial court was trying to fix the problem created by the inconsistent verdict, and counsel for the City and the Utilities Board insisted that there was a problem. In the ensuing confusion, for which the City and the Utilities Board cannot be held responsible, the jury was discharged without any of the court's proposed solutions having been put in place. The only statement that even comes close to an agreement by the City and the Utilities Board to discharge the jury is Mr. Vercelli's statement that [w]e will talk about it post-trial. This statement, however, cannot be characterized as a waiver of the right to challenge an inconsistent verdict. Instead, the statement declared that the City and the Utilities Board were not abandoning the issue but would raise it in a later motion. We conclude that the City and the Utilities Board did not consent to an inconsistent verdict or invite the court to commit error and that their motion for a new trial was sufficient to preserve the inconsistent-verdict issue for review. [5] The trial court erred in denying that motion, and the City and the Utilities Board are entitled to a new trial on their negligence claim.