Opinion ID: 1687168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Violation of Motor Vehicle Title Law

Text: Dairyland's first issue raises the question of liability based on Dairyland's violation of the Alabama Uniform Certificate of Title and Antitheft Act, Code 1975, § 32-8-1 et seq. Dairyland violated § 32-8-87(b), supra, by failing to obtain the V.I.N. and license plates from the truck and send them, together with the certificate of title, to the Department of Revenue. This violation is a misdemeanor. § 32-8-13. The legislature substantially amended § 32-8-87 after the time of this accident. Act No. 85-650, 1985 Ala. Acts 1010. We express no judgment whether these changes would affect the kind of liability sought to be imposed upon Dairyland if the case had been based on failure to comply with the Act after the effective date of this amendment. The complaints in the Hamilton and Evans cases included counts alleging that Dairyland's violation of this Code section constituted negligence which proximately caused the plaintiffs' injuries. Treadwell alleged in its cross-claims and third-party claim that Dairyland's failure to comply with the Act constituted negligence or a misrepresentation of the condition of the truck. We do not address the question of whether the cross-claims and the third-party claim are viable or are prohibited attempts at compensation among joint tortfeasors, in view of our resolution of the issues on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims in favor of Dairyland. The trial court instructed the jury that Dairyland's violation of this Act was negligence as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs were within the class of persons intended to be protected by the Act, and that the jury was to decide whether Dairyland's violation of the Act was the proximate cause of the accident. Dairyland objected to these instructions. Before the violation of a statute can be taken as evidence of negligence as a matter of law in a civil action, the plaintiff must show that the statute was designed to protect the class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member and to prevent the type of injury which the plaintiff has suffered, that the defendant violated the statute, and that the violation proximately caused the injury. Fox v. Bartholf, 374 So.2d 294 (Ala.1979); Johnson v. I.B.E.W. Local 558 Properties, Inc., 418 So.2d 885 (Ala.1982); Murray v. Alabama Power Co., 413 So.2d 1109 (Ala.1982). The Act was not enacted to prevent motor vehicle accidents, but to prevent motor vehicle thefts. The very title states that it is an antitheft act. The overall plan of the Act shows exclusive attention to maintaining records of the identity and ownership of vehicles. Hamilton's executors, Evans, and Treadwell advance the argument that, because the Act calls for an inspection of a total loss vehicle before the issuance of rebuilt identification plates, §§ 32-8-48, -35, the Act provides for a safety inspection to protect subsequent purchasers from dangerous, defectively rebuilt vehicles. The inspection is made by the Department of Revenue, however, not the Department of Safety (a point confused by the trial court in its instructions). A reading of § 32-8-35 shows that the inspection is for the purpose of determining that the vehicle for which new plates are being sought is the one described in the application for a new certificate of title. Of course, if the Act was not intended to prevent the sort of injury complained of here, it cannot have been enacted to protect accident victims. It was enacted to protect owners of vehicles from thefts. See State v. Spurlock, 393 So.2d 1052 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981). For the foregoing reasons, violation of the Act did not subject Dairyland to liability for negligence. Treadwell has waived any claim that violation of the Act subjected Dairyland to liability for misrepresentation as alleged in Treadwell's claims against Dairyland, because that theory was not submitted to the jury in the court's instructions and has not been argued here.