Opinion ID: 1842881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Prior Pleadings Issue

Text: Gulf Shores argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit pleadings from a Florida lawsuit filed by Harbert against Parkson. Gulf Shores asserts that in the Florida pleadings Harbert took positions inconsistent with its positions in this case, and, thus, that the pleadings were admissions against interest. Harbert argues that its positions in the Florida lawsuit and in this case were consistent, and also that, even if its positions were inconsistent, the pleadings were cumulative because Gulf Shores presented Harbert's position to the jury in other ways. Parkson argues that the Florida pleadings establish nothing but Harbert's available defenses, and not its actual position, and concurs with Harbert in asserting that the Florida pleadings were cumulative in this case. We conclude that the admission of the Florida pleadings would have been cumulative, and, therefore, that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit them. Initially, we note that Gulf Shores is correct that a party's pleadings in a prior case are admissible against that party in a subsequent action as an admission against interest. Yates v. Christian Benevolent Funeral Homes, 356 So.2d 135 (Ala.1978), Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Stone, 293 Ala. 726, 310 So.2d 206 (1975). The prior pleadings, however, must be indeed inconsistent with the party's present position and must be drawn under the party's direction or with his consent. Whaley v. Lawing, 352 So.2d 1090 (Ala.1977); and see, Murphree v. Henson, 289 Ala. 340, 267 So.2d 414 (1972), and Elder v. Ralls Sanitarium, Inc. 219 Ala. 298, 122 So. 41 (1929). Here, we conclude that Gulf Shores sufficiently established, by other evidence, that Harbert's positions were inconsistent. In the Florida lawsuit Harbert blamed Parkson for the failure of the DynaSand filters and sought damages. In the present action, both Harbert and Parkson assert that the filters failed because Gulf Shores did not meet proper influent levels. Also, it was never seriously contested that the Florida pleadings were drawn under Harbert's direction or with Harbert's consent. However, this Court will not reverse a trial court's refusal to admit otherwise admissible evidence if the same facts are shown at trial by other means. In short, a trial court's failure to admit cumulative evidence is merely harmless error. Patton v. Palmer, 555 So.2d 127 (Ala.1989), Sweatman v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 418 So.2d 893 (Ala.1982), McLemore v. Alabama Power Co., 289 Ala. 643, 270 So.2d 657 (1972). In this case, the trial court admitted into evidence pleadings from another lawsuit between Harbert and Parkson filed in Jefferson County, Alabama, and concerning the same basic facts as those involved in this case. We think that Harbert's position in the Jefferson County lawsuit was substantially the same as, or at least similar to, its position in the Florida lawsuit. Further, Gulf Shores questioned Christopher Matthews, Harbert's key employee on the Gulf Shores wastewater treatment project, about Harbert's position against Parkson. The record reads as follows: Q: [By counsel for Gulf Shores] Mr. Matthews, you were still at Harbert in the fall of 1985, were you not? A: Yes. Q: And did you review pleading[s] that were filed by Harbert in its lawsuit against Parkson? A: I may have. I can't remember whether I did or not. Q: Yes, sir. I want to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 431, which was an answer and affirmative defense that was filed by Harbert International in the lawsuit against Parkson. .... A: I knew there was a filing of some sort. I can't say for sure whether I read this exact document. Q. Yes, sir. Let me ask it another way. Do you recall that in the fall of 1985, it was Harbert's position that Parkson had breached the purchase order? A: To the best of my recollection. Q: Do you recall that it was Harbert's position that the filters failed to function in accordance with the contract between Harbert and Parkson? A: Yes, I believe so. Q: Do you recall that it was Harbert's position that the filters would not perform as promised and represented and warranted by Parkson? A: I believe so. I think that is part of the Harbert filing. (R. at 2384-85.) The Jefferson County pleadings and Matthews's testimony about the Florida pleadings, we believe, outlined Harbert's position against Parkson. The admission of the Florida pleadings would have been merely cumulative; therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to admit them into evidence, and if there was error it was harmless. Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P.