Opinion ID: 1763178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negligent and/or Wanton Training and Supervision and Failure to Investigate

Text: Wal-Mart, Easterling, and Paxton argue that Smitherman did not present substantial evidence to prove his negligence and wantonness claims. In that connection, they state: Smitherman has never been employed in any capacity by Wal-Mart. He has no contract with Wal-Mart. He was never promised that he could continue to deliver bread to Wal-Mart indefinitely. Wal-Mart became dissatisfied with Smitherman because Smitherman refused to provide a $1 credit to Wal-Mart's account for a bread bag he was removing from the premises. Wal-Mart asked Merita Bread to send a different delivery man to its store from that point forward. Appellants' Brief, at 15. Thus, Wal-Mart, Easterling, and Paxton insist, they cannot be liable for the manner in which they investigated the merits of the dispute whether Wal-Mart was entitled to a credit for the empty bread bagbecause, they argue, they did not owe any duty to Smitherman, as an employee and sales representative of Merita, its bread vendor, to continue to allow Smitherman to deliver to Wal-Mart. We agree with this argument, because it illustrates the fatal flaw in Smitherman's negligent and/or wanton failure-to-investigate claim. The flaw is that Smitherman has failed to cite, argue, or allege a principle of law that would prohibit Wal-Mart from refusing to deal with him for any reason or for no reason. In the absence of such a principle, there could be no legal injury flowing from Wal-Mart's allegedly deficient investigation. In essence, this claim is a wrongful discharge claim, masquerading as a negligent and/or wanton failure-to-investigate claim, where no wrongful-discharge claim has been, or could have been, maintained. In particular, count six of Smitherman's complaint alleges only that Wal-Mart and Paxton negligently or wantonly failed to investigate the credit dispute. Thus, Smitherman did not allege in his complaintand does not argue on appeal that his claim is one for wrongful termination of employment. Neither does he allege or argue that Wal-Mart owed him a right of permanent access to its premises for service of its Merita account, and the facts of this case would not support such a claim. This is so, because Smitherman does not purport to be a Wal-Mart employee. Indeed, it is undisputed that he works for Merita, and, indeed, he claims to have no contractual or business relationship with Wal-Mart. [1] Under Alabama law, an employment contract is generally terminable at will by either party, with or without cause or justificationfor a good reason, a wrong reason, or no reason at all. Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co., 599 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Ala.1992); see also Turner v. Shorty's Truck & R.R. Car Parts, Inc., 723 So.2d 1279, 1282 (Ala.Civ. App.1998) (the employment of an at-will employee may be terminated at any time, for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason). In Alabama, `permanent' employment is `so long as [the employer is] engaged in the same nature of business and need[s] the services of [the] employee, and [the employee is] able and willing to do it satisfactorily and [gives] no cause for his discharge.' Matthews v. Alabama Agric. & Mech. Univ., 716 So.2d 1272, 1277 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (emphasis added) (quoting Alabama Mills v. Smith, 237 Ala. 296, 299, 186 So. 699, 701 (1939)). Because he does not claim to be an employee of Wal-Mart, a fortiori, he has no claim to permanent -employee status, so as to restrict the manner in which Wal-Mart may deal with him. In short, neither Smitherman, nor Justice Johnstone in his special writing, can answer Wal-Mart's argument that it had an unqualified right to deny him access to its premises to service its account with Merita. Justice Johnstone's special writing alludes to the testimony of a certain Wal-Mart official, who suggested that Wal-Mart had a policy [to] hear both sides of a situation. 872 So.2d at 843 (testimony of Paxton) (emphasis omitted). On the basis of such testimony, Justice Johnstone proposes that Wal-Mart voluntarily assumed a duty to conduct a good faith investigation of the incident. From this proposition, Justice Johnstone leaps to the conclusion that Wal-Mart had a duty not to ban Smitherman if he was not in the wrong. His special writing simply ignores the dispositive issue, namely, the source, if any, of the restriction it seeks to impose on Wal-Mart's unqualified legal right to refuse to deal with Smitherman. The implications of Justice Johnstone's special writing are most troubling. Under the rule he would adopt, an employer could transform its relationship with an employee from at-will to permanent, simply by admitting that it aimed to treat its employees fairly as a matter of policy. Such a principle is not, and should not be, the law in Alabama. For these reasons, the trial court erred in submitting the negligence and wantonness claims to the jury.