Opinion ID: 1859554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wanton Training and Supervision

Text: Wantonness is defined in § 6-11-20(b)(3) as [c]onduct which is carried on with a reckless or conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. In Valley Building & Supply, Inc. v. Lombus, 590 So.2d 142, 144 (Ala.1991), this Court, citing Lynn Strickland Sales & Service, Inc. v. Aero-Lane Fabricators, Inc., 510 So.2d 142 (Ala. 1987), explained the difference between negligence and wantonness: What constitutes wanton misconduct depends on the facts presented in each particular case. South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Branum, 568 So.2d 795 (Ala. 1990); Central Alabama Electric Coop. v. Tapley, 546 So.2d 371 (Ala.1989); Brown v. Turner, 497 So.2d 1119 (Ala.1986); Trahan v. Cook, 288 Ala. 704, 265 So.2d 125 (1972). A majority of this Court, in Lynn Strickland Sales & Service, Inc. v. Aero-Lane Fabricators, Inc., 510 So.2d 142 (Ala.1987), emphasized that wantonness, which requires some degree of consciousness on the part of the defendant that injury is likely to result from his act or omission, is not to be confused with negligence (i.e., mere inadvertence): `Wantonness is not merely a higher degree of culpability than negligence. Negligence and wantonness, plainly and simply, are qualitatively different tort concepts of actionable culpability. Implicit in wanton, willful, or reckless misconduct is an acting, with knowledge of danger, or with consciousness, that the doing or not doing of some act will likely result in injury....' 510 So.2d at 145. See also Central Alabama Electric Coop. v. Tapley, supra, and South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Branum, supra. To prevent a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict from being entered for Big B on her wanton training and supervision claim, Cottingham had to support her claim for compensatory damages with substantial evidence that Vaughn's supervisors made a conscious decision to downplay the sexual harassment complaint that had been made against Vaughn by the mother of the female employee, knowing that to do so would likely result in Vaughn's mistreating a female customer or employee. Cottingham had to support her claim for punitive damages with clear and convincing evidence. After extensively reviewing the evidence and carefully considering the briefs of the parties, we hold that Cottingham made the necessary evidentiary showing to sustain her claim of wanton training and supervision. As previously noted, Vaughn's supervisors did not train Vaughn how to properly detain and handle an accused shoplifter, even though Vaughn detained shoplifters on numerous occasions. Furthermore, Vaughn's fitness for employment was called into question when the mother of a 16-year-old female employee accused Vaughn of making an improper sexual advance toward her daughter. Although Stephens and Suco confronted Vaughn with the mother's accusation and Vaughn denied any wrongdoing, Stephens and Suco did not interview the female employee or file a thorough formal report with Big B's corporate headquarters. The jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Stephens and Suco consciously chose to downplay the incident in order to retain Vaughn, knowing that to do so would likely give Vaughn another opportunity to demean or otherwise mistreat a female customer or employee. We hold therefore, that on Cottingham's claim of wanton training and supervision Big B was not entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. After examining the remaining issues presented by Big B, we hold that all of those issues, with the exception of the one concerning the excessiveness of the punitive damages award, are without merit.