Opinion ID: 1872780
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: inference on an inference

Text: Finally, State Farm argues that proof of negligence, and proof that the injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehicle require the impermissible stringing together of inferences. However, we find that the rule against an inference on an inference is not offended here. An inference is a reasonable deduction of fact, unknown or unproved, from a fact that is known or proved. See, Malone Freight Lines, Inc. v. McCardle, 277 Ala. 100, 167 So.2d 274 (1964). [A]n inference cannot be derived from another inference. Malone, 277 Ala. at 107, 167 So.2d at 281. An inference must be based on a known or proved fact. Id. On the element of negligence, we may infer from the known fact of the existence of a truck bench seat on a busy highway, that a person was negligent. As to whether McKnight's and Khirieh's injuries arose from the use of a motor vehicle, we may infer from the known fact of the truck bench seat on a busy highway, that the negligent person was operating a motor vehicle; this is also an inference from the known fact of the truck seat in the busy highway. This conclusion does not offend the rule against an inference on an inference simply because a single known fact led to more than one inference. The key here is that neither the inference of negligence nor the inference of the use of a motor vehicle is drawn from another inference. For this reason, and because McKnight and Khirieh have produced substantial evidence on their claim of negligence and on their claim that their injuries arose from a phantom motorist's use of a motor vehicle, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, State Farm, and remand this cause for trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, J., concur. MADDOX and HOUSTON, JJ., concur specially.