Court Opinion

ID: 9932866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:19.165714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:23.175851
License: Public Domain

I concur only in the result reached by the majority as concerns issues I and II, and write specially on issue III concerning the recovery of damages for mental anguish.
I agree that the trial court erred in instructing the jury not to consider the issue of damages for mental anguish. However, it appears to me that such was error based onTaylor v. Baptist Medical Center, Inc., 400 So.2d 369 (Ala. 1981). In Taylor, the supreme court abrogated our long-standing rule which required a physical injury before damages could be awarded for mental anguish in tort cases. There, the court held that mental suffering may be "equally recognizable standing alone." Taylor, 400 So.2d at 374.
Therefore, it appears to me that Rice was only required to present evidence of his mental anguish. The question of damages for mental anguish then became a question of fact for the jury to decide. As I find from a review of the record that there was a scintilla of evidence as concerns Rice's mental anguish, the trial court committed reversible error by not allowing this issue to go to the jury.