Opinion ID: 1559080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Robinson Residence

Text: Meanwhile, on August 25, 1999, the Company received a request for natural-gas service at a residence at 306 4th Avenue in Chickasaw. The Company's service personnel inspected the appliances in the house and discovered a central-heating unit (hereinafter referred to as the CHU) similar to the one involved in one of the 1985 incidents, similarly situated in a central hallway closet, and similarly defective. The service technician filled out a hazardous-appliance report, checking the boxes to indicate that the CHU had (1) [b]adly corroded burners, (2) [i]noperative or disconnected controls affecting safe operation of [the] appliance, and (3) [p]roducts of combustion spill[ing] at [the] diverter. Although the occupant was provided with a copy of the hazardous-appliance report, gas service was, nevertheless, initiated at the residence. In January 2004, Tyrone Wilson purchased the house. Wilson owned a number of properties, which he, in turn, leased to residents. On May 1, 2004, Rosa Robinson rented the house from Wilson. On June 3, 2004, one of the Company's service technicians visited the residence at Robinson's request to establish natural-gas service. An inspection of the premises revealed that the same hazardous conditions noted in the CHU in the hazardous-appliance report completed in 1999 were still present, namely, (1) [b]adly corroded burners, (2) [i]noperative or disconnected controls affecting safe operation of [the] appliance, and (3) [p]roducts of combustion spill[ing] at [the] diverter. Indeed, the technician discovered that the disconnected controls included an important safety feature that had been jumped out, that is, the feature had been deliberately bypassed by splicing wires. This unauthorized bypass allowed the CHU to operate without the blower door in place, which, in turn, allowed the products of combustion  including carbon monoxide  to diffuse throughout the residence. Thus, despite the issuance of a red-tag warning in 1999, the CHU had not been repaired. The technician completed another hazardous-appliance report. In a space provided for recommendations, the technician wrote: blower door switch. Having thus retagged the CHU for the unrepaired defects, the technician extinguished the pilot light to the CHU and turned off the valve in the natural-gas line leading to it. However, he installed a gas meter and turned on the natural-gas service to the residence. Robinson promptly delivered her copy of the hazardous-appliance report to Wilson's secretary. Approximately a week later, the Company sent a service technician back to the residence to repair a gas leak in the backyard. At that time, the technician observed that the CHU had not been repaired. By December 2004, the CHU still had not been repaired. Robinson made a number of unavailing requests of Wilson to repair it. In the meantime, she attempted to heat the house with electric space heaters and the kitchen range. Also residing in the home at that time were Robinson's three minor children, David McMeans, Kelvin McMeans, and Harriett Johnson, as well as Harriett Robinson, her elderly mother. On December 22, 2004, after Robinson's brother had visited the family and had discovered the harsh living conditions, he telephoned Wilson to complain about the lack of an effective heater in the house. The next day, Wilson came to the house and lit the CHU. Before he left, however, Robinson remarked to him that the CHU smell[ed] funny. Wilson promised to send someone to look at it. A few minutes later, Robert Harris, an employee of Harry Balbuena d/b/a Harry's A/C and Heating (Harry's Heating), arrived, opened the closet where the CHU was located, and began working. Robinson left for work while Harris was still at the house. According to Harriett Johnson, the minor daughter, the house subsequently began to warm and Harris left. That night, Robinson came home early from her job at a Wal-Mart discount store and began baking pastries for Christmas. She was the last of her family to retire for the night at approximately 1:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter, Harriett Johnson awoke, gasping for air, and fell out of bed. She was dizzy and had a severe headache. She crawled on her hands and knees to her mother's bedroom and awakened Robinson. Robinson was dizzy and her head was hurting. Robinson then awakened David, who also complained of a severe headache. Subsequently, they awakened Kelvin, who was also complaining of a headache, and telephoned the fire department. By the time rescue personnel arrived, the family members were nauseous and vomiting. All family members were taken by ambulance to Springhill Memorial Hospital (the hospital), where they were diagnosed with, and treated for, carbon-monoxide poisoning. Robinson and her three children were released from the hospital later that day, but her mother suffered seizures from the exposure to the carbon monoxide and died on December 31, 2004. Later on the day of incident, service technicians from the Company were summoned to Robinson's residence by the fire department. They discovered the CHU in the same unrepaired hazardous condition as had been noted in June. As an example, the blower door had been removed, but, because the safety feature had been bypassed, the CHU would still operate. The technicians tested the air inside the house after operating the CHU for 15 minutes. The tests revealed high concentrations of carbon monoxide throughout the residence. They retagged the CHU. This time, however, they also disconnected the CHU from the natural-gas line and capped off the gas line. Effective repairs were finally made to the CHU on or about December 28, 2004. On December 29, 2004, technicians from the Company revisited the residence, determined that the CHU was operating properly, and removed the red tag. Robinson sued the Company, as well as Tyrone Wilson d/b/a T & T General Contractors and T & T Home Rental and Construction LLC, Harris, and Harry's Heating, seeking compensatory and punitive damages under theories of negligence and wantonness for the personal injuries to Robinson and her three minor children and seeking punitive damages for the alleged wrongful death of Robinson's mother. Robinson's theory of liability against the Company at the trial of the case was that the Company should never have initiated natural-gas service at Robinson's residence given its knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the CHU. Over the Company's objections at trial, evidence was admitted indicating that the City of Mobile and the City of Chickasaw had adopted in 1991 and 1993, respectively, the following ordinances: [Mobile] Sec. 45-61. Reconnection of discontinued gas service.  Whenever in a building or structure where the gas service has been discontinued and a hazardous report from the [Company] has been sent to the inspection services department of the city, it shall be necessary that an investigation fee be paid, that the indicated hazardous conditions be corrected, and that a visual inspection be conducted by the mechanical inspection services of the city, and that an approval by this agency be obtained before reconnection to the gas supply may be effected. [Chickasaw] Sec. 18-158. Investigation of hazardous conditions. . . . . . . .  Whenever in a building or structure where the gas service has been discontinued and a hazardous report from the [Company] has been sent to the codes inspector, it shall be necessary that an investigation fee of $10.00 be paid, that the indicated hazardous conditions be corrected, that an inspection be conducted by the codes inspector and that an approval by such inspector be obtained before reconnection to the gas supply may be effected. (Emphasis added.) The Company moved for a judgment as a matter of law (JML) at the close of all the evidence. Its motion was denied. Over the Company's objections, the court charged the jury: All persons or entities who conduct activities in Alabama are presumed to know its laws. Everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have constructive knowledge of the law. (Emphasis added.) Hereinafter, this charge will be referred to as the no-excuse charge. During its deliberations, the jury submitted the following written question to the court: Is an ordinance a law? Without advising the Company's counsel of the question or providing an opportunity for counsel's input, the court answered the jury's question in the affirmative. Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Robinson and against the Company, Wilson, and Harris. It awarded $2,400,000 for the wrongful-death claim. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $600,000 for the personal-injury claim asserted by Robinson and $250,000 for the personal-injury claim asserted on behalf of each minor child. Finally, the jury assessed $200,000 in punitive damages against the Company. [2] The trial court entered a judgment on that verdict. The Company then renewed its motion for a JML and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial or a remittitur of the damages. That motion was overruled, and the Company appealed.