Opinion ID: 2496476
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court's Judgment as a Matter of Law on Bailey's Claim of Wantonness

Text: Bailey contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her wantonness claim against Dr. Miller regarding his actions during the thoracotomy. Bailey contends that her wantonness claim should have been submitted to the jury because, she says, she presented evidence indicating that the tissue surrounding her stomach was inflamed, that Dr. Miller knew that sutures stitched into inflamed tissue would not hold, and that the failure of such sutures would result in a larger hole in her stomach. She also notes that Dr. Lowery testified that if Dr. Miller had sutured an inflamed area that would be a gross breach of the standard of care, and that Dr. Colella testified that no board certified surgeon [could] have reasonably expected that these two sutures ... would hold if the tissue was inflamed. Wantonness, however, is not merely a higher degree of negligence; instead, it is a `qualitatively different tort concept of actionable culpability.' Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Trzcinski, 682 So.2d 17, 19 (Ala. 1996) (quoting Lynn Strickland Sales & Serv. Inc. v. Aero-Lane Fabricators, Inc., 510 So.2d 142, 145 (Ala.1987)). `Gross negligence is negligence, not wantonness. `Before one can be convicted of wantonness, the facts must show that he was conscious of his conduct and conscious from his knowledge of existing conditions that injury would likely or probably result from his conduct, that with reckless indifference to consequences, he consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or omitted some known duty which produced the injury.' Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 403, 10 So.2d 367, 369 (1942) (quoting 5 Mayfield's Digest, p. 711, § 6). Our legislature has defined wanton conduct as [c]onduct which is carried on with a reckless or conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others, § 6-11-20(b)(3), Ala.Code 1975, and, to justify an award of punitive damages, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, § 6-11-20(a), Ala.Code 1975. See also § 6-11-20(b)(4), Ala.Code 1975 (defining clear and convincing evidence). We cannot conclude that the record before us contains sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude under the aforesaid statutes that Dr. Miller had engaged in conduct that was carried on with a reckless or conscious disregard for the rights or safety of Bailey. Thus, the trial court did not err in entering a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Miller on Bailey's wantonness claim. [8]