Opinion ID: 1772659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in disallowing evidence of the price of Marine Builders' shrimp boats and of Marine Builders' net worth.

Text: It appears from the record that the injection of the price of Marine Builders' shrimp boats and Marine Builders' net worth occurred in the opening statement of APCo's attorney. That statement referred to Marine Builders' construction of bigger and taller shrimp boats (which were then sailed down Halls Mill Creek with skids on the masts to enable them to pass under APCo's power line). That statement continued: And they demanded, `Okay, power company, you raise the line,' and the power company said, `Look, it is our policy that when people who are in the business need a line raised to accommodate them, they pay the cost for raising the line,' and they said to them, they said, `Do you want us to give you an estimate,' and they said, `No, they're not going to pay you a dime.' So they wrote letters. They wrote the ADO. In the meantime, an impasse develops. Now let methe evidence will also shownow we're talking about a quarter of a million dollar shrimp boats being produced one a month MR. SINTZ: Now, if the Court please, we object to that; any reference to how big the vessels or anything else has no place in this. MR. ALLEN: It has much to do with whether it would be reasonable for these people to pay the cost of THE COURT: Let's proceed on what we expect the evidence to be in the case. MR. SINTZ: If he would like me to mention the net worth of the Alabama Power Company, which has nothing to do with this lawsuit either. Later, during APCo's cross-examination of Ed Horton, one of the owners of Marine Builders, the following took place: Q.... At the time the power company quoted you a figure of ten thousand dollars or thereabouts to raise this line, how many boats per year were you producing in the shipyard? A. Approximately twelve. Q. About one a month? A. It would vary. Q. But approximately twelve a year. A. That's correct. Q. What was the average sales price of those boats? MR. SINTZ: Your Honor MR. CROWDER: Your Honor, that would be immaterial. MR. SINTZ: Totally irrelevant. We object. THE COURT: I sustain the objection. Later in the trial, the attorney for plaintiffs called Mr. Ray Horton, vice-president of Marine Builders, as an adverse witness, and during his testimony on direct examination, he referred to his company's difficulties with APCo's low power lines and its repeated concerns about the safety of its men and others. He added: Q. Did you ever get a positive response to the inquiries and complaints you made? A. The only one I can remember is them saying that we would have to pay to raise them. Q. And who was it that told you, you would have to pay to raise the lines? A. I don't remember. We got a letter from the power company. Q. Have you looked for that letter? A. Yes. Q. And have you been able, or not been able to find it? A. No. Q. Do you remember the amount that they told you you would have to pay to raise their power line? A. $10,000.00. Q. And what did you tell them when they told you you would have to pay $10,000.00 to raise their power line? A. Well, at the time, we couldn't afford it. Q. And did you tell them you weren't going to pay it? A. Told them we couldn't pay it. We didn't think it was our place to pay it. Q. Now, you in addition, and your brother Ed who testified earlier, would go out on some of the boats that went out of the creek, is that true? A. That's true. Q. He told us he went about fifty percent of the time. Were you the fellow that went the other fifty percent of the time? A. That's right. Q. And did you have occasion during the course of the time that you were taking these boats out to observe those wires and the condition of the wires? A. Constantly. Q. Were the wires, the wires were hung crossways on crossbars, weren't they? A. Yes. Q. Were all the wires hanging at the same level during the period of time, let's say, in 1976? A. To the best of my knowledge, they were. Q. And when you would go under there and when the conditions were such that the tide was up and it was in warm weather, is that when you had your skids come in contact occasionally with the wires? A. Yes, the skids always went above the mast about this far (indicating). We didn't get right down on top of the mast. We always kept it up. And when it did make contact, it would just touch it, but then the wires would sag like that (indicating), and sometimes they would touch together way out in the middle. We have referred to the financial condition of Marine Builders vis-a-vis the power line, as disclosed in the record, to show that the subject was first broached on cross-examination of a witness by APCo itself, and later by plaintiffs in cross-examination, not by Marine Builders. In Ray Horton's later testimony, APCo attempted to have him disclose the net worth of Marine Builders and the sales prices of their shrimp boats, but objection to this was sustained. The obvious purpose of this line of questioning was to show that Marine Builders had the financial ability to raise the power line. This issue has been mooted by the jury's verdict for plaintiffs and in favor of Marine Builders and Bangor Punta on APCo's claims against them for negligence. The jury implicitly found that it was APCo's duty to maintain the lines at a 40-foot level and that it failed in this duty, and that its failure proximately resulted in the deaths and injuries. The jury's findings exonerating Marine Builders implicitly found that Marine Builders owed no duty to raise the lines. Thus, any evidence disclosing that Marine Builders had the financial ability to raise the lines was irrelevant if Marine Builders had no duty to do so. Moreover, by arguing that the financial condition of Marine Builders was admissible by APCo to rebut evidence offered by Marine Builders, APCo, we respectfully suggest, has misconceived the order of the evidence. It was APCo, and then plaintiffs, who adduced this evidence, not Marine Builders. Hence, the Rule of Cities Service Oil Co. v. Griffin, 357 So.2d 333 (Ala.1978) (permitting rebuttal of irrelevant evidence offered by opposing party) does not apply. The trial court did not err in disallowing this evidence.