Court Opinion

ID: 9659162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:33:34.207277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:04.589337
License: Public Domain

HARWOOD, Justice (dissenting) :
We concur in the view of the majority of our brethren that the demurrer was properly sustained as to Count 7A. However, we are not in accord with the view of the majority that the demurrer was properly sustained as to Count SA.
Count 5A is as follows:
“The plaintiff, age 9, claims of the defendant the sum of $30,000 as damages, for that heretofore on to-wit, the 16th day of April 1969, the defendant had undertaken as a cub scout leader, to-wit, Den Master, to supervise the activities, of the plaintiff and other members of his cub scout pack at a cub scout meeting called by the defendant as such Den-Master at his home in Andalusia, Covington County, Alabama.
“And plaintiff avers that after having-undertaken the supervision of the activities of the plaintiff, as aforesaid, the defendant did, then and there, negligently fail to properly and adequately supervise-the activities carried on at said meeting-on his said premises, as aforesaid, in that the defendant negligently permitted or allowed the plaintiff and other members of said cub scout pack to engage in-rowdy and boisterous play in the yard of the defendant during the said meeting, and while the plaintiff was under the supervision and control of the defendant as said scout leader, as aforesaid, and as a; proximate result and consequence of the negligent failure of the defendant to' properly and adequately supervise the activities of the plaintiff at said time and place the plaintiff sustained personal injuries and damages when as a direct result of the defendant’s failure to supervise the activities of the plaintiff and in the course of said rowdy and boisterous: unsupervised play the plaintiff’s right ankle was badly broken when he was-caused to fall or be thrown over an old automobile tire located on the premises-of the defendant, as aforesaid, whereby the plaintiff was injured in this to-wit: his right ankle was badly broken; his-right ankle will be permanently stiff; he-was permanently injured; he suffered,, continues to suffer and will in the future suffer great physical pain and mental. *155anguish; his normal boyhood activities have been restricted.
“And plaintiff avers that all of his said injuries and damages, as aforesaid, were the proximate result and consequence of the negligent failure of the defendant to properly supervise the activities carried on at said meeting after having undertaken the supervision of said activities as aforesaid, hence this suit.”
It is apparent from a reading of Count 5A that the gravamen of the wrong alleged therein is the negligent supervision of the plaintiff, a boy nine years of age, after such supervision had been undertaken by the defendant as scout master.
In this, Count 5A differs from Count 7A which was posited on the care owed a licensee injured on defendant’s premises.
In Alabama Power Co. v. King, 280 Ala. 119, 190 So.2d 674, and Alabama Power Co. v. Guy, 281 Ala. 583, 206 So.2d 594, the following rules are set forth for determining the sufficiency of a count in a personal action. We refrain from listing the authorities cited in those two cases in support of the principles enunciated.
Every action in tort consists of three elements, (1) the existence of a legal duty by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) damages as a proximate result.
If the alleged acts in themselves do not constitute negligence as a matter of law but are merely sufficient to suggest and ■support an inference of negligence, the ■complaint must characterize the acts as negligence, and it is not enough that negligence be merely assumed. However, where the count alleges facts from which negligence may be reasonably inferred, followed by averments characterizing such ■acts as negligently done, the plaintiff assumes the burden to prove negligence in the particular case, and the count is sufficient as an allegation of defendant’s negligence.
In Aircraft Sales & Service, Inc. v. Bramlett, 254 Ala. 588, 49 So.2d 144, it is set forth:
“ * * * but we think the rule in Alabama is firmly established that where a situation is averred to show a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff to exercise due care, a failure to do so is negligence and that negligence may be counted on in general terms.”
Count 5A shows a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff in that as den master he undertook to supervise the activities of the plaintiff and other members of the cub scout pack at a meeting called at defendant’s home; it avers a breach of that duty in that the defendant negligently failed to properly supervise the activities carried on at his home by negligently permitting the plaintiff and other members of the scout pack to engage in unsupervised, boisterous and rowdy play while the plaintiff was under the supervision and control of the defendant, and as a proximate result of the negligent failure of the defendant to properly supervise the activities of the plaintiff at the time and place the plaintiff sustained personal injuries, etc.
Count 5A meets the standards set forth above for the construction of a count seeking damages for personal injuries resulting from the negligence of a defendant. It is our view therefore that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to said count.
Counsel for appellee (defendant below) takes the position that since Count 5A averred that the negligent supervision by the defendant took place at defendant’s home, disposition of the count should yet be on the basis of duty owed a licensee. We cannot agree. As before stated, the gravamen of the count is negligent supervision. The place at which such negligent supervision took place cannot affect the duty owed the plaintiff under the averments of the count. The location of the alleged breach of duty is unimportant, whether it occurred on the plaintiff’s premises, or elsewhere.
*156Counsel for appellee argues further that the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained because of a misjoinder of causes of action in that Count 5A avers that the injury occurred at the defendant’s home in Andalusia, Alabama, while Count 7 A alleges that the injury occurred at the defendant’s home in Opp, Alabama. Ground 6 of the demurrer asserted a misjoinder of actions on such basis.
There is no merit in this contention.
Section 220, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, specifically provides that all actions ex delicto may be joined in the same suit. Even in the face of this statute, good pleading would seem to dictate that separate and distinct causes of action should not be joined in the same count of a complaint. See Southern Ry. Co. v. Hanby, 166 Ala. 641, 52 So. 334.
However, since it is our view that Count 5A did sufficiently state a cause of action based on’ the negligent supervision of appellant by . the appellee, this judgment should be reversed.
HEFLIN, C. J., and MADDOX, J., concur.