Opinion ID: 1097730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the trial court's failure to delineate between the individual defendants

Text: Subsequent to completion of the substantive portion of the trial court's charge to the jury, the trial judge submitted to the panel three possible alternatives upon which the case might be decided. The first was as follows: We, the jury, find for the plaintiff against the defendant American Employees Benefit Trust in fixed damages at $___. We further find in favor of the defendants Russell E. Hoffman and Leland Jones. The second verdict form given the jury read: We, the jury, find for the plaintiff against the defendant American Employees Benefit Trust, Russell E. Hoffman and F. Leland Jones in fixed damages at $___. Additionally, the trial court, in its explanation to the jury of the concept of punitive damages, stated: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is a possibility that you could find since there is a default against American Employees Benefit Trust a verdict against the trust and yet you not be able to have a unanimous decision, if that even be a result, you could not all agree to a verdict against the defendants personally. You would be unanimously agreeing that there should be a verdict against the trust but there could be in the jury's deliberation process a situation arise where you could not have a decision for or against the defendants personally and you would have a hung jury and mistrial on the issue of personal liability, but a judgment unanimously determined against the trust. I have not written a verdict out in that respect, but if that be your decision you report that and one will be directed and entered by the court itself along that issue. That just came to me at this particular time and I don't already have one written out, but conceivably it would be read, We the jury find for the plaintiff against the defendant American Employees Benefit Trust and fix damages at $___ and mistry the case as to defendants Hoffman and Leland Jones, resolving the issue between the trust and the plaintiff and the matter would stay as entered the courtroom Monday against the other defendants. We note with particular emphasis that, despite submission to the jury of the three proposed methods of disposition heretofore expressed, there remained still another viable alternative, to-wit: a finding by the jury favorable to one individual defendant and unfavorable to the other. [6] As properly noted by Defendants at the time, the trial court's proposed verdict forms failed to afford the jury any opportunity to delineate between the relative guilt, if any, of Defendants Hoffman and Jones, individually. This was improper. Although joint liability was authorized, it was not mandated under the pleadings and proof of this case. See Southern Hardware & Supply Co. v. Block Brothers Co., 163 Ala. 81, 50 So. 1036 (1909). Each Defendant was sued in his individual capacity, based upon his particular role in Plaintiff's alleged factual scenario. While we express no opinion as to what result should obtain from the record before us, we are clear to the conclusion that one of the viable options available to the jury was foreclosed by the verdict forms and the trial court's oral instruction relative thereto. By this procedure, the trial court erred to reversal. Although our reversal is based upon an issue raised only by the individual Defendants, because of the relationship of the corporate and individual Defendants, we believe justice requires that this cause be remanded for a new trial as to all parties defendant. REVERSED AND REMANDED. TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX and SHORES, JJ., concur. BEATTY, J., concurs in the result.