January 22, 2015

Travelers v. Gray - Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Crash Judgment

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment favoring an accident victim and her husband against their insurance company for uninsured motorist benefits on grounds the order improperly relied on a default judgment against the other driver.
driving5.jpg
In Travelers v. Gray, the state high court found a default judgment against the driver who caused the crash is not binding against a plaintiff's own insurer where the firm was not listed as a defendant in the original complaint. The court relied on its previous ruling in Bailey v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. to reach its conclusion.

The court previously held that in order for both the insured and the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier to protect their rights in the course of making a claim, the plaintiff can either join his own liability insurer as a defendant in the lawsuit or give notice of the filing and the possibility of a claim at the close of trial. In cases where the insurer is named as a party, it has the right to choose whether to participate. In either case, the insurer will be bound by the court's decision on the issues of liability and damages.

Continue reading "Travelers v. Gray - Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Crash Judgment" »

January 12, 2015

Stuhlmacher v. Home Depot - Ladder Defect Case to be Retried

The injury at the center of the recently-decided Stuhlmacher v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. didn't occur around the holidays. However, it is relevant because it involves an allegedly defective ladder. The fact is, both before and for weeks after the holiday season, people climb ladders to decorate and then "un-decorate" their homes. ladder1.jpg

It's a fact that ladders can tip regardless of their condition if they aren't used properly. However, when a ladder collapses or otherwise fails when being used properly as intended or anticipated, this may be grounds for a product liability lawsuit.

This was the case in Stuhlmacher.

Generally in order to succeed in a product liability lawsuit, one must prove not only he or she suffered injuries, but that those injuries were proximately caused by a product that was either defective or lacked proper instructions or warnings. One must also show the product was being used more or less in the manner intended.

Here, according to court records, the issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was that of causation, as posited by a plaintiff expert witness, whose testimony was stricken from the record by the trial judge. Without that testimony, causation could not be proven. The federal appellate court reversed, finding the testimony qualified as relevant under Civil Rule 702, so long as it helps the jury in determining any fact at issue in the case. Specifically, expert witnesses are allowed to put forth alternative models to explain their conclusions, the court ruled.

Continue reading "Stuhlmacher v. Home Depot - Ladder Defect Case to be Retried" »

January 6, 2015

Semian v. Ledgemere Transp., Inc. - Comparative Fault in Cycling Accidents

Bicycling in Montgomery has gained speed in recent years, with the area boasting some 1,380 miles of trails specifically for biking. In addition, numerous events, races and club rides are organized every year, with many participants choosing to make cycling part of their everyday commute, exercise or recreation. Montgomery is an ideal place for this year-round, given our great climate.
bikerinthecurve.jpg
Cyclists must be sure, however, to follow the rules of the road. This is true everywhere, but it's especially true in Alabama, where liability of a motor vehicle driver who collides with a cyclist will be eliminated if the cyclist shares any percentage of fault.

Alabama is one of just five states in the country that follows the "pure contributory negligence" system in civil courts. Per the rulings issued by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ala. Power Co. v. Schotz in 1968 and John Cowly & Bros., Inc. v. Brown in 1990, a plaintiff making a claim based on negligence will lose entitlement to damages if plaintiff is at all negligent.

Continue reading "Semian v. Ledgemere Transp., Inc. - Comparative Fault in Cycling Accidents" »

December 30, 2014

Grant v. Wiley Sanders Trucking Lines - Deciding Estate Representative for Alabama Wrongful Death Lawsuit

The trauma of losing a loved one as a result of negligence can be compounded when there is a dispute regarding who may be named personal representative of decedent's estate.
truckdriver.jpg
The question is a crucial one because while multiple people may be dependents or have standing to collect on a wrongful death claim, only one person can file claim - and that's the personal representative. This person must be named to this position before litigation can proceed.

Even then, it is not completely out of the ordinary for disputes to occur, as the recent case of Grant v. Wiley Sanders Trucking Lines, Inc., before the Alabama Supreme Court, reveals.

Continue reading "Grant v. Wiley Sanders Trucking Lines - Deciding Estate Representative for Alabama Wrongful Death Lawsuit" »

December 20, 2014

Robert Bosch LLC v. Smith - Ala. Supreme Court Weighs Product Liability Lawsuit

Amid a host of recalls for faulty airbags used by nearly a dozen auto manufacturers, the Alabama Supreme Court recently weighed another product liability case involving allegedly defective airbags.airbag1.jpg

In Robert Bosch LLC v. Smith et al., justices were asked whether a trial court erred in requiring defendant air bag manufacturer to submit a series of internal records deemed trade secrets as part of discovery.

Defendant appealed that decision, arguing it should not be forced to turn over information that could be damaging to the company. Plaintiff argued trial court did not err in its ruling and the need to prevent disclosure does not outweigh the benefit of disclosing what should be considered relevant evidence.

Continue reading "Robert Bosch LLC v. Smith - Ala. Supreme Court Weighs Product Liability Lawsuit" »

December 12, 2014

Bilesky v. Shopko - Spoliation of Evidence Met With Sanctions

Evidence is the crux of any legal case. The truth, of course, is of paramount importance, but what is also key is what can be proven. Without the right amount and type of evidence, a case will go no where.
gavel21.jpg
This is as true for personal injury cases as it is for those involving crimes.

Because certain evidence can be considered critical to a case, and those with vested interest in not having that evidence presented may be in possession of it for a time. The courts have long recognized the importance of sanctions for loss or destruction of evidence - regardless of whether it was intentional. When important evidence is lost, it's called spoliation. By imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence, the court provides incentive to protect key evidence that may be helpful to the opposing side.

Sanctions can include anything from a special instruction to the jury to a default judgment on the issue of liability or damages. It can result in the party disadvantaged by the loss of evidence winning the case.

Continue reading "Bilesky v. Shopko - Spoliation of Evidence Met With Sanctions" »

December 2, 2014

Peterson-Tuell v. First Student Transp. - Prior Health History Relevant to Determine Damages

It seemed like a relatively straightforward case: A school bus driver, working for a private contractor, rear-ended a woman in a vehicle, pushing that driver into another vehicle, causing some damage to the vehicle and, allegedly, injury to that driver.
gaveljan.jpg
When the driver who was struck later filed a lawsuit for injuries sustained in the crash, defendant school bus company admitted to liability in Peterson-Tuell v. First Student Transp., LLC. There was really nothing to argue in that regard, as the bus driver was clearly at fault in proceeding when the light turned green without making sure traffic ahead had started to move.

That meant the only thing left to decide was the issue of damages. The injured driver asked for $3 million, saying a traumatic brain injury stemming from the crash rendered her unable to work. The company offered to pay her $95,000, arguing her injuries were psychosomatic. In the end, a jury granted the woman even less, $65,000.

Continue reading "Peterson-Tuell v. First Student Transp. - Prior Health History Relevant to Determine Damages" »

November 30, 2014

RGR, LLC v. Settle - $2.5M Railroad Crash Verdict Affirmed in Part

Railway crashes and accidents result in hundreds of deaths each year, according to the Federal Railway Administration, which reported a total of 1,734 train accidents in 2012. traintracks1.jpg

In comparison to the enormous carnage seen on America's roadways involving solely motor vehicles (causing an estimated 33,000 deaths annually), it might seem a minor problem. However, 700 deaths in a single year - 2012 - is cause for concern. That's only slightly fewer than the number of people killed in recreational boating incidents, so it warrants the attention of motorists.

Just recently in Alabama, a 27-year-old former contestant on the hit show "Survivor" was killed in Birmingham while working as a conductor when an axle on one of the cars derailed and he was thrown into another car in the yard.

Some of the more common causes of train accidents in Alabama include:


  • Failing mechanics

  • Malfunctioning lights or signals

  • Inadequate track maintenance

  • Failure to install/maintain safety gates

  • Unprotected crossings

  • Conductor negligence

  • Defective train or parts

Continue reading "RGR, LLC v. Settle - $2.5M Railroad Crash Verdict Affirmed in Part" »

November 20, 2014

Alabama Distraction Crash Lawsuit Jury Awards $525,000

A truck driver, reportedly distracted by his cell phone, has been held liable for injuries sustained by two men who were struck by the driver while traveling U.S. Highway 31 near Birmingham. iphone.jpg

According to media reports, a man and his nephew sustained severe injuries as a result of the collision, including rib fractures, broken facial bones, a brain bleed and surgery to remove a spleen.

Following a recent five-day trial, a jury in Jefferson County Circuit Court ordered the driver to pay $525,000 collectively to both men for causing the crash.

This figure might seem somewhat high, but the reality is, costs for crash injuries can add up quickly when one factors emergency care, long-term medical bills, therapies, lost wages, property damage and disabling conditions that may prevent a return to work. A recent AAA study found the average cost of an injury crash is $126,000. Meanwhile, the cost of an average traffic fatality is about $6 million.

Continue reading "Alabama Distraction Crash Lawsuit Jury Awards $525,000" »

November 11, 2014

Nuckols v. Stevens - Proper Venue for Alabama Car Accident Lawsuits

Determination of jurisdiction and venue are important considerations in any personal injury lawsuit. It's not always a straightforward issue, particularly if litigants are from different states or there is a question of federal law.
carcrash6.jpg
For the most part, injury lawsuits stemming from car accidents and truck accidents are going to fall under the purview of state courts. However, a court has to have personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction before it can hear a case. That means either the defendant resides in that district or it is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim occurred.

If a lawsuit is filed in the wrong venue, the court will likely dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning you can file again. Sometimes, the court will transfer the case to the proper district, but only if it's "in the interest of justice." However, if the case is dismissed, the time spent in the wrong court consumes valuable time that could count against you in terms of the statute of limitations on your case.

Continue reading "Nuckols v. Stevens - Proper Venue for Alabama Car Accident Lawsuits" »

November 2, 2014

Travelers v. Harrington - Auto Insurance Exclusions

Various personal lines of insurance contain provisions that exclude either family or household members from coverage. The common law that gave rise to these exclusions had to do with the "familial immunity doctrine," which essentially prohibited legal actions between parents and children, spouses, etc. carcrash5.jpg

While the courts long held this doctrine promoted family harmony, insurance companies were primarily interested in avoiding collusive acts between family members to collect on insurance - a form of fraud.

Since the mid-20th century, family exclusion laws have been challenged on the grounds that courts should recognize the difference between fraud and legitimate claims, and there may well be instances where family members are legitimately liable for negligence resulting in injury to loved ones.

Continue reading "Travelers v. Harrington - Auto Insurance Exclusions" »

October 30, 2014

Bufkin v. Felipe's - Pedestrian Injury, Premises Liability and Open-Obvious Doctrine

A pedestrian injured by a bicyclist while crossing a bustling street as he reached a private construction zone won't be entitled to seek relief from the construction company, even though the company's large trash bin obstructed the view of those traveling the road.
dumpster.jpg
Bufkin v. Felipe's et al., was a complex injury case that involved consideration not just of relevant traffic laws, but also duties owed under premises liability law.

Specifically, the issue was whether the trash bin should be considered an inherent hazard and if the hazard was open and obvious.

Generally, the mere fact that someone was injured doesn't entitle that person to pursue or collect monetary damages.

Continue reading "Bufkin v. Felipe's - Pedestrian Injury, Premises Liability and Open-Obvious Doctrine" »

October 20, 2014

Ballesteros v. Roney - Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and Vehicle Accidents

Military service members on active duty are entitled to special consideration in matters of civil law when it comes to certain time limits and statutory requirements.
salute.jpg
When a member of the military is injured in a civilian auto accident, and later called to active duty before completion of the civil case, he or she can seek relief from the court for certain deadlines that would otherwise prohibit a case form moving forward. Here in Montgomery, we have the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force base, and a fair amount of military members living in and around our communities.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, codified in 50 U.S.C. App. 501-597b, protects servicemembers from default judgments when the servicemember is materially affected by reason of service in making a defense to the action. Additionally, a servicemember is entitled to a stay of proceeding when a commanding officer can attest the current military duty will prevent appearance and that military leave will not be authorized for the purpose of allowing an appearance.

Continue reading "Ballesteros v. Roney - Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and Vehicle Accidents" »

October 10, 2014

Bruns v. City of Centralia - Distraction in Premises Liability

Typically the topic of "distraction" in injury law is most closely associated with motor vehicle accidents. And of course, it's relevant in that context, as distraction behind the wheel is extremely dangerous. But it's worthy of discussion in other areas of personal injury law as well, including premises liability.
asphaltcrack.jpg
The "distraction doctrine" holds that if the property owner had reason to suspect an individual on site may not have appreciated a danger - even an open and obvious one - due to distraction or preoccupation - he or she would still have had a duty to correct or warn.

In the recent Illinois Supreme Court case of Bruns v. City of Centralia, plaintiff asserted the distraction doctrine as an exception to the open and obvious danger of a large, hazardous crack in a sidewalk in front of an eye clinic on which the elderly plaintiff tripped and fell. Plaintiff argued the city should have reasonably foreseen a pedestrian would become distracted while walking up to the clinic, and the appellate court agreed. However, the state supreme court reversed on the grounds that the simple act of looking up does not impose on defendant a duty to protect a plaintiff from an open and obvious defect.

Continue reading "Bruns v. City of Centralia - Distraction in Premises Liability" »

October 1, 2014

Curtis v. Lemna - Lawsuit Against Co-Worker Depends on Scope of Employment

Workers' compensation in Alabama, as in most other states, is intended an exclusive remedy for injuries incurred on the job. However, there are some options for additional compensation under certain conditions.
golfequipment.jpg
One of those might be when injuries are caused by a co-worker - but only if that co-worker was acting outside the scope of his or her employment. Some examples would be if he or she was off-the-clock or if the injury was intentional. Otherwise, the co-worker would likely be indemnified under worker compensation laws.

The individual facts of the case are going to weigh heavily on whether the court allows third-party litigation against a co-worker, but it's important to have the case carefully vetted by an experienced Alabama workers' compensation lawyer.

Continue reading "Curtis v. Lemna - Lawsuit Against Co-Worker Depends on Scope of Employment" »


Martindale-Hubbell AV Rated
for Over Twenty Years


Certified Civil Trial Specialist
National Board of Trial Advocacy


American Board of Trial Advocates
Rank of Advocate


Super Lawyers - 2010