Opinion ID: 1867518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wanton and Willful Conduct

Text: This Court has defined `wanton conduct': `[The] doing of some act or something with reckless indifference to the consequences of said act, or . . . a failure or omission to do something, with reckless indifference to the consequences of such failure or omission, that is, that the party acting or failing to act is conscious of his conduct, and even though without any actual intent to injure is aware from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions that his conduct would probably result in injury to another or in damage to his property.' Armstrong Bus. Servs., Inc. v. AmSouth Bank, 817 So.2d 665, 679-80 (Ala.2001) (quoting Weatherly v. Hunter, 510 So.2d 151, 152 (Ala.1987), quoting in turn W.T. Ratliff Co. v. Purvis, 292 Ala. 171, 176, 291 So.2d 289, 293 (1974)). `Wantonness involves the conscious doing of some act or the omission of some duty, while knowing of the existing conditions and being conscious that, from doing or omitting to do an act, injury will likely or probably result.' Ammons v. Tesker Mfg. Corp., 853 So.2d 210, 213 (Ala.2002) (quoting Hobart Corp. v. Scoggins, 776 So.2d 56, 58 (Ala.2000)). To constitute `willful or intentional injury,' there must be knowledge of danger accompanied with a design or purpose to inflict injury, whether the act be one of omission or commission. English v. Jacobs, 263 Ala. 376, 379, 82 So.2d 542, 545 (1955). Dr. Hooper's complaint included separate claims of willful and wanton conduct against Columbus at each of the two hospitals operated by it. To establish those claims, Dr. Hooper must prove that Columbus had a duty to refrain from causing him the alleged injury or damage and that Columbus breached that duty. Beard v. Mobile Press Register, Inc., 908 So.2d 932 (Ala.Civ.App.2004); Ammons, supra. Dr. Hooper proffered evidence indicating that Columbus sought to blemish his record and to prevent him from opening a medical practice in the Columbus, Georgia/Phenix City area. However, he failed to establish the existence of a duty toward him in this regard. He did not allege in his appeal that the blemish rose to the level of the tort of defamation, although he had included a defamation claim in his original complaint. Nor did Dr. Hooper establish that Columbus's alleged efforts to prevent him from opening a medical practice violated any duty Columbus owed him. Ordinarily, a business has no duty to assist a competitor in establishing a competing business in the same geographical area and thereby undermine its own business. We conclude that the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment for Columbus on the claims alleging willful and wanton conduct, and we affirm the trial court's judgment as to those claims.