Opinion ID: 1809297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ownership of the Tractor-Trailer Rig

Text: J.B. Hunt's argument that Credeur failed to present sufficient evidence for a jury determination of the issues is actually in part an argument that Barber Pure Milk Co. v. Holmes, 264 Ala. 45, 84 So.2d 345 (1955), which we held in Credeur I to be the controlling case law on the issue of evidence of ownership of the vehicle causing the accident, should not control. In Credeur I, this Court applied the principle of Barber, in which this Court stated that the fact that the defendant's name was painted or inscribed in some manner on the motor vehicle which inflicted the injury sued for raises a presumption, or is prima facie evidence, that the defendant owned [the] vehicle, and that the driver was using it in [the] defendant's behalf. Id., 264 Ala. at 54, 84 So.2d at 352. In Credeur I, this Court also noted the fact that, at the time of the accident, J.B. Hunt operated approximately 350 tractors and over 4,000 trailers out of its Atlanta, Georgia, terminal. J.B. Hunt could not show that one of the trucks was not involved. Accordingly, this Court reversed and remanded for trial. In Credeur I, J.B. Hunt did not attempt to distinguish Barber based on the type of vehicle involved, but, at trial and on this appeal, J.B. Hunt has asserted that Barber is inapplicable because the truck involved in Barber was a self-propelled vehicle, rather than a tractor-trailer. This fact is significant, J.B. Hunt argues, because trailers owned by one company can be towed by tractors of another company. J.B. Hunt argues that identifying a trailer with the design and paint scheme of J.B. Hunt should not be sufficient to allow the inference that J.B. Hunt owned and operated the tractor towing that trailer. J.B. Hunt admits that the majority of states have held that a plaintiff's testimony that a defendant's name appearing on a motor vehicle creates a prima facie case, or a rebuttable presumption, that the defendant owned the motor vehicle, but it argues that, for purposes of applying this principle, the term motor vehicle does not include a tractor-trailer. J.B. Hunt points to § 32-1-1.1(32), Ala.Code 1975, and to several cases, none from this jurisdiction. Based on that statute and those cases, it concludes that the court should have directed a verdict in its favor, arguing that Credeur's evidence did not establish ownership of the tractor-trailer. Section 32-1-1.1(32) defines motor vehicle as [e]very vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. J.B. Hunt argues that a trailer, not being self-propelled, cannot be included in the definition of motor vehicle. Accordingly, the argument proceeds, any identifying insignia or markings on a trailer are not identifying insignia or markings on a motor vehicle; therefore, J.B. Hunt says, Credeur has not made a prima facie showing that J.B. Hunt owned the vehicle involved in the accident. Regardless of how the Alabama Code defines motor vehicle for purposes of Title 32, J.B. Hunt cites no compelling authority for concluding that, for purposes of the rule applied in Barber, the term motor vehicle does not include tractor-trailers. J.B. Hunt primarily relies on Fuller v. Tennessee-Carolina Transportation Co., 63 Tenn.App. 330, 471 S.W.2d 953 (1970). In that case, Fuller, the owner of several commercial vehicles, suffered damage to his property when a tractor-trailer crossed the center line of a steep and winding highway and forced Fuller's driver, who was approaching this tractor-trailer, to pull to the right of the highway to avoid a collision. Fuller's driver testified that the tractor was a red II-67 series Mack cab-over-engine tractor. The only identifying mark, however, that the driver saw was a red diamond-shaped figure in the center part of the front of the trailer; that figure carried the letters T.C.T. There was testimony that that mark matched the markings on trailers owned by the defendant. The defendant had discarded logs and other records that would have been helpful in determining whether one of its tractors was the vehicle towing its trailer. Further, the defendant was not the only common carrier owning Mack cab-over-engine tractors. The Tennessee Court of Appeals, primarily relying on the uncontroverted evidence that the defendant frequently interchanged trailers with other carriers, held that the lower court had properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. Tennessee-Carolina Transportation Co., 63 Tenn.App. at 340, 471 S.W.2d at 957. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not allow the inference that it was more probable than not that one of the defendant's tractors was in the vicinity of the accident when the accident occurred. J.B. Hunt's evidence indicates that a customer, such as Scott Paper Company, might have the use of a J.B. Hunt trailer for shipping loads from one of its facilities to another. J.B. Hunt also presented evidence that it has sold several thousand of its older trailers to other trucking companies, and it presented photographs of sold trailers showing that the J.B. Hunt logo no longer appeared on the doors of those trailers but that the doors were painted yellow. J.B. Hunt did not present evidence, as the defendant did in Tennessee-Carolina Transportation Co., to show interline and interchange operations. Further, it did not present evidence showing the frequency with which customers like Scott Paper Company have the use of J.B. Hunt trailers, and it did not present evidence showing that customers having the use of J.B. Hunt trailers travel I-10 in Mobile County. Accordingly, whatever distinction might be drawn where tractor-trailer rigs, rather than ordinary trucks, are concerned, this case does not present a factual situation compelling enough for this Court to modify its long-standing rule, which conforms with the majority rule in the United States.
J.B. Hunt argues that Credeur failed to present substantial evidence that J.B. Hunt owned the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident that injured Credeur. J.B. Hunt moved for a directed verdict, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a new trial on this ground; all of these motions were denied. This Court stated in John R. Cowley & Brothers, Inc. v. Brown, 569 So.2d 375 (Ala.1990): `The law of Alabama is clear as to the standards for testing a motion for directed verdict and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The standard for testing a motion for directed verdict is identical to that for testing a motion for JNOV. Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5 (Ala.1981). Both motions test the sufficiency of the evidence. Wright v. Fountain, 454 So.2d 520 (Ala.1984).' Black Belt Wood Co. v. Sessions, 514 So.2d 1249, 1251 (Ala.1986). Evidentiary challenges, except on grounds of admissibility, are divided into two separate and distinct categories: sufficiency of the evidence raised by motion for JNOV and measured by the substantial evidence rule; and weight and preponderance of the evidence, raised by motion for a new trial and measured by the `palpably wrong and manifestly unjust' standard. Nelson Bros., Inc. v. Busby, 513 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Ala.1987), quoting Burroughs Corp. v. Hall Affiliates, Inc., 423 So.2d 1348 (Ala.1982). 569 So.2d at 376-77. Substantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved. West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). Additionally, [i]n ruling on a motion for a directed verdict or for a J.N.O.V., the court views the entire evidence and makes all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Pickett v. United States Steel Corp., 495 So.2d 572 (Ala.1986). Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Harris, 630 So.2d 1018, 1025 (Ala.1993). This Court held in Credeur I that Credeur had made a prima facie showing that the defendant owned the truck that caused Credeur's injuries. This Court stated: Credeur argues that he was very familiar with the distinctive paint scheme and the lettering of the defendant's name on its trucks. He testified that the truck that caused his accident was painted with the yellow paint scheme and the bold black lettering that he says is distinctive to the defendant's trucks and that the defendant's name was painted on the truck. At his deposition, he was able to describe the distinctive J.B. Hunt lettering and paint scheme that he says he had seen on the truck that caused his accident. At the time of the accident the defendant operated approximately 350 tractors and over 4,000 trailers out of its Atlanta, Georgia, terminal. The defendant did not disclose where any of its trucks were on the night of the accident and cannot show that one of the trucks was not involved. Credeur I, 655 So.2d at 934-35. Additionally, Credeur testified that earlier on the evening of the accident he had seen a J.B. Hunt tractor-trailer rig travelling eastbound on I-10 just as Credeur was. He stated that he could identify the tractor he had earlier seen towing the trailer as a J.B. Hunt tractor. He admitted that he was uncertain whether the tractor he had seen was the vehicle that later made an improper lane change. Further, the testimony of James Corso, [1] the driver of the truck following immediately behind Credeur at the time of the accident, supported Credeur's position, except that he said that because of the darkness and distance he could not recognize any identifying marks on the tractor-trailer that caused Credeur's accident, but he said he did see it heading north on I-65. He stated, I wasn't concerned at the moment with whose truck was in front of [Credeur]. I was concerned with my truck and helping this guy get out of his truck alive. Corso did testify, however, that immediately after he and another trucker pulled Credeur out of his vehicle, Credeur said to them, it was a J.B. Hunt truck; did you see it? Cynthia Albert, the insurance manager at Sam Broussard Trucking Company, also supported Credeur's testimony in that she stated that at every time the accident was discussed or paperwork was completed in reference to the accident, Credeur maintained that a J.B. Hunt truck caused the accident. This Court has noted the evidence J.B. Hunt presented. The fact that it was possible that a driver for Scott Paper Company or some other customer was towing the J.B. Hunt trailer does not render it more likely than not. Credeur's evidence allows the inference that it was more probable than not that J.B. Hunt's tractor was involved in the accident. The trial judge properly denied the motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial.