 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.1/15/1999
Rel: 1/15/1999 Smith v. State Farm
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.; Kent v. Singleton, 457 So.2d 356 (Ala. 1984); and Rule 606(b), Ala. R. Evid.
Hooper, C.J., and Maddox, Almon, Houston , Cook, and Lyons, JJ., concur.
Kennedy, J., Dissents.
KENNEDY, Justice (dissenting).
A majority of this Court has voted to summarily affirm the trial court's order reinstating the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). Because I think that in the trial of this case the court erred in such a manner as to substantially prejudice the plaintiff, I must respectfully Dissent.
Daniel Scott Smith was driving an automobile on McFarland Boulevard in Tuscaloosa on December 23, 1994. His girlfriend, Martin Gibson, and her cousin, Tyson McRee, were riding in the automobile with him. The automobile crashed; Daniel Scott Smith and McRee were killed. Based on his belief that the driver of an unidentified vehicle had caused the crash that killed his son, Daniel Scott Smith's father, Danny Smith, acting individually and as personal representative of his son's estate, made claims upon State Farm for benefits under the uninsured-motorist provision of insurance contracts the Smith family had with State Farm. State Farm denied the claims.
Danny Smith sued State Farm in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, claiming (1) breach of the insurance contracts and (2) bad-faith failure to pay the insurance claims. Before trial, State Farm moved for a summary judgment on the bad-faith claim, and the trial court granted its motion. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the claim alleging a breach of the insurance contract.
At trial, Danny Smith presented evidence indicating that Daniel Scott Smith's automobile had been forced off the road as a result of wanton conduct on the part of an unidentified person driving a red Ford Mustang automobile. However, State Farm attempted to rebut Smith's claims by presenting evidence indicating that no other vehicle had forced Daniel Scott Smith's automobile from the road. State Farm also presented evidence indicating that Daniel Scott Smith was intoxicated by alcohol at the time of the crash. At the close of testimony, the trial court's instructions to the jury included a charge on "sole proximate cause." The jury returned a general verdict for State Farm, and the court entered a judgment for State Farm based upon that verdict.
Danny Smith moved for a new trial. He had argued at trial that he would have been entitled in a wrongful-death action to recover on a wantonness or negligence theory against the unidentified (and therefore uninsured) driver who he said caused the accident. In his new trial motion, he claimed that the court had improperly charged the jury on the issue of "sole proximate cause," thus directing the jury's attention to Daniel Scott Smith's possible contributory negligence in such a way as to cause the jury not to consider Danny Smith's claim of wantonness, which would not have been barred by contributory negligence. Upon this ground, the court set aside the jury's verdict and granted Danny Smith's motion for a new trial.
State Farm filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider its order granting a new trial. In support of its motion, State Farm filed affidavits in which jurors stated that in reaching its verdict the jury did not consider any possible contributory negligence on the part of Daniel Scott Smith. In response, Danny Smith filed a motion to strike State Farm's juror affidavits, contending that they were obtained in an improper manner. Alternatively, he
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|