Opinion
1180926
05-15-2020
Deborah K. SHANNON v. Jenna Kathryn SMITH
E. Kirk Wood of Wood Law Firm, LLC, Birmingham, for appellant. Mark D. Hess of Hand Arendall Harrison Sale, LLC, Birmingham, for appellee.
E. Kirk Wood of Wood Law Firm, LLC, Birmingham, for appellant.
Mark D. Hess of Hand Arendall Harrison Sale, LLC, Birmingham, for appellee.
MITCHELL, Justice. Deborah K. Shannon suffers from ongoing medical problems that she claims are the result of an automobile accident. The jury that considered the claims she asserted against the other driver rejected her claims and returned a verdict in favor of the other driver. After the trial court denied her motion for a new trial, Shannon appealed, arguing that the jury's verdict was not sustained by the preponderance of the evidence. Because there was adequate evidence to support the verdict, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On February 20, 2016, Shannon stopped at a red light on U.S. Highway 280 in Birmingham. Jenna Kathryn Smith stopped behind her. When the light turned green and traffic began to move, Smith's cell phone fell down by her feet. As she reached down to pick it up, she rear-ended Shannon's vehicle while her eyes were off the road. Shannon claims that she suffers neck and shoulder pain as a result of the accident, as well as vertigo and migraines. Shannon was treated by a chiropractor and an acupuncturist and received multiple surgical interventions to manage her pain.
On June 7, 2017, Shannon sued Smith in the Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging negligence and wantonness and seeking compensatory damages, special damages, and punitive damages. A jury trial was held on June 17 and 18, 2019, and Shannon asked the jury to award her $47,374.24 in medical expenses, compensatory damages for pain and suffering and permanent injuries, and punitive damages. Smith did not deny that she was at fault in the accident, but she contested whether Shannon's injuries were the result of the accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Smith on both the negligence and wantonness counts. Shannon moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion. Shannon appealed.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial for an excess of discretion. Colbert County-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Auth. v. Nix, 678 So. 2d 719, 722 (Ala. 1995).
" ‘[T]he denial of a motion for a new trial [on the ground that the verdict is against the weight and preponderance of the evidence] will not be reversed by this Court unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions as to the verdict's correctness, the preponderance of the evidence is so against it that this Court is clearly convinced that it is wrong and unjust.’ "
Med Plus Props. v. Colcock Constr. Grp., Inc., 628 So. 2d 370, 374 (Ala. 1993) (quoting Deal v. Johnson, 362 So. 2d 214, 218 (Ala. 1978) (second alteration added in Med Plus )).
Analysis
To establish both negligence and wantonness, a plaintiff must prove that her injuries were caused by the defendant.
" ‘To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty to a foreseeable plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) damage or injury. Albert v. Hsu, 602 So. 2d 895, 897 (Ala. 1992). To establish wantonness, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant, with reckless indifference to the consequences, consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or omitted some known duty. To be actionable, that act
or omission must proximately cause the injury of which the plaintiff complains. Smith v. Davis, 599 So. 2d 586 (Ala. 1992).’ "
Lemley v. Wilson, 178 So. 3d 834, 841-42 (Ala. 2015) (quoting Martin v. Arnold, 643 So. 2d 564, 567 (Ala. 1994) (emphasis omitted)).
Credible evidence was presented at trial indicating that Shannon's injuries predated the February 2016 automobile accident and that her negligence and wantonness claims against Smith were therefore meritless. Dr. Phillip Langer treated Shannon's shoulder injuries and testified that those injuries could have been caused by an automobile accident. Smith rebutted this evidence by showing that Shannon had not disclosed her past participation in the Atlanta Axe Throwing League to Dr. Langer and that her shoulder injuries were also consistent with injuries caused by axe throwing.
Dr. Armin Vatani Oskouei treated Shannon's neck injuries and testified about efforts to treat her ongoing neck and shoulder pain, as well as the fact that her injuries were consistent with an automobile accident. Smith rebutted this testimony by pointing out that Dr. Oskouei's testimony about injuries caused in automobile accidents seemed to assume a much more serious collision than the collision that actually took place and that he knew very little about Shannon's prior medical history or developments after the short period in which she received treatment at his practice.
In addition, Smith rebutted Shannon's allegation that her ongoing dizziness and migraines were the result of the automobile accident by introducing a record from an urgent-care facility in Georgia showing that Shannon was treated for those symptoms on July 22, 2015, almost seven months before the accident. And she impeached Shannon's testimony on several occasions by highlighting inconsistencies in Shannon's statements about her participation in axe throwing and her prior treatment for vertigo.
Based on this record, the jury was entitled to believe Smith's evidence and to disbelieve Shannon's -- and the jury apparently did so. The trial court subsequently acted within its discretion in denying Shannon's motion for a new trial.
Conclusion
Because Smith presented credible evidence at trial that Shannon's injuries predated the automobile accident, the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied Shannon's motion for a new trial. Its judgment is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, J., concur.
Bryan and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result.