Opinion ID: 1888026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Negligence and Wantonness

Text: The Danielses contend that the trial court erred in entering a JML in favor of EAPI on the wantonness count, thereby precluding the jury from considering the individual claims for punitive damages. EAPI contends that the trial court erred in not also entering a JML in its favor on the personal-injury claims to the extent those claims were based on a theory of negligence. When reviewing a ruling on a motion for a JML, this Court uses the same standard the trial court used initially in granting or denying a JML. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So.2d 3 (Ala.1997). Regarding questions of fact, the ultimate question is whether the nonmovant has presented substantial evidence to allow the factual issue to be submitted to the jury for resolution. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1992). See, also, § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). A motion for JML is properly denied where there exists any conflict in the evidence for consideration by the jury. Cloverleaf Plaza, Inc. v. Cooper & Co., 565 So.2d 1147, 1149 (Ala.1990). In reviewing a ruling on a motion for a JML, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and entertains such reasonable inferences from that evidence as the jury would have been free to draw.
The Danielses presented evidence in support of their contention that EAPI had created a dangerous condition on I-85 and that EAPI had failed to warn against the condition. As previously noted, any drop-off of two inches or less had to be rolled and tapered to prevent a vertical edge. If the drop-off exceeded two inches, additional traffic-control devices were required or, alternatively, the lane should have been closed. Frank Osborne, who is Vellica's husband, went to the accident scene the day after the accident occurred. Osborne testified that he measured the pavement edge and that in various locations it measured three to four inches and appeared straight up and down. Osborne also took photographs of the accident scene. The Danielses introduced these photographs at trial; they indicated that the pavement edge was vertical and that it exceeded two inches in height. Clifford A. Prosser, a traffic-accident consultant, investigator, and reconstructionist, reviewed certain evidence in the case and opined that the accident was the classic pavement-edge-drop and oversteer-loss-of-control-type accident. Robert V. Kolar, a consulting engineer, testified that, based on the photographic evidence, he was able to determine that the pavement edge was 3.37 inches high and that it appeared nearly vertical. EAPI presented evidence in support of its contention that the pavement edge and/or drop-off was in a safe condition when its employees left the work site at the end of the day on which the accident occurred. EAPI offered evidence that there were signs at the beginning and at the end of the construction zone informing drivers that they were entering/exiting a construction zone. William Gray, a project engineer with ADOT, testified that ADOT had the responsibility to make sure that all traffic-control devices, e.g., barrels, low-shoulder signs, etc., were in place and that they complied with plans and specifications incorporated in the Alabama Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Gray testified that EAPI was responsible for actually placing the traffic-control devices on the roadway at ADOT's instruction, and that ADOT comes back behind [EAPI] and makes sure that they do their job. Gray further testified that there were no additional traffic-control devices in place at the time of the accident because, he says, ADOT determined that none were necessary. Bennie Dease, an employee of ADOT, testified that on the morning of the day of the accident he had stopped in various spots and measured the pavement edge and that the edge drop-off was two inches or less. Dease testified that he made a notation to this effect in the ADOT diary, which was introduced into evidence. Rex Stroud, a superintendent with EAPI, testified that he routinely walked behind the paving truck and the roller machine and actually observed the pavement edges. He further testified that he had no knowledge that any pavement edge on this particular project had ever exceeded two inches or had not been tapered. Stroud testified that if he had observed a drop-off exceeding two inches, he probably would have closed the lane or put up additional traffic-control devices. The evidence created a conflict regarding 1) whether the pavement edge and/or drop-off exceeded two inches and 2) whether the pavement edge and/or drop-off had been rolled and tapered. This conflict in the evidence created a jury question, which was resolved in favor of the Danielses. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied EAPI's motion for a JML on the negligence count.
We now consider whether the Danielses produced sufficient evidence to allow the question of wantonness to be submitted to the jury. In Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roush, 723 So.2d 1250, 1256 (Ala.1998), this Court stated: To prove wantonness, it is not essential to prove that the defendant entertained a specific design or intent to injure the plaintiff. Wantonness is defined by statute as [c]onduct which is carried on with a reckless or conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b)(3). In Roush, citing Bozeman v. Central Bank of the South, 646 So.2d 601 (Ala.1994), this Court described wantonness as 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. 723 So.2d at 1256. In Pitt v. Century II, Inc., 631 So.2d 235 (Ala.1993), the Court discussed when a wantonness count was properly submitted to a jury: With regard to whether the court should have submitted to the jury the claim for punitive damages under the wantonness count, we note that our review of the [JML] is governed by the `clear and convincing evidence' standard of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-20. Section 6-11-20(a) allows an award of punitive damages only `where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant consciously or deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness, or malice.' Section 6-11-20(b)(4) defines `clear and convincing evidence': `Evidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion. Proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.' Id. at 240. The record is devoid of any clear and convincing evidence of a conscious disregard on the part of EAPI. EAPI offered evidence indicating that additional traffic-control devices were not in place on the day of the accident because, it contended, none were needed. No evidence indicated that EAPI was aware that the pavement edge exceeded two inches. EAPI introduced evidence indicating that the pavement edge had been rolled and tapered. Further, there was no evidence of any reports of similar accidents and/or complaints regarding the area when this accident occurred. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted EAPI's motion for a JML on the wantonness count.