Elizabeth Crocker v. Jonathan Grammer

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/09/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2090957 E l i z a b e t h Crocker v. Jonathan Grammer Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-903670) MOORE, Judge. Elizabeth Circuit Ala. Court Code Evidence. Crocker appeals ("the t r i a l 1975, h a s been We reverse. from an o r d e r court") concluding abrogated oftheJefferson t h a t § 12-21-45, by t h e Alabama Rules o f 2090957 On N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , a motor-vehicle Grammer Insurance uninsured- Grammer accident with Crocker. f i l e d a complaint Allstate Jonathan court against ("Allstate"), and/or underinsured-motorist of f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s . involved i n On N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , i n the t r i a l Company was who was insurer, Crocker, Grammer's a n d a number Grammer a s s e r t e d c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness a g a i n s t Crocker and t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants and underinsured-motorist filed an answer Crocker filed 2009, A l l s t a t e that a benefits t o Grammer's an a n s w e r filed i t was e l e c t i n g claim against complaint on December a motion 9, for Allstate. Lowe court v. granted Nationwide Allstate o n D e c e m b e r 3, 2008. On 2008; August t o opt out of the case, 5, noting t o o p t o u t and t o be bound b y t h e f a c t - f i n d e r ' s d e c i s i o n on t h e i s s u e s o f l i a b i l i t y trial uninsured/ that motion I n s . Co., on 521 and damages; the February So. 2d 24, 2010. 1309, See 1310 ( A l a . 1988). At orally the outset of moved trial the the t r i a l court on March 9, to suppress 2010, any Grammer evidence r e g a r d i n g t h i r d - p a r t y payments o f Grammer's m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s . The that motion, trial court orally granted 2 a n d , on M a r c h 10, 2090957 2010, i t entered and order for granting a detailed written regarding medical determined § In 12-21-45, been that having Evidence, and t h a t t h e c o l l a t e r a l t o govern personal injury Based on evidence that superseded a plaintiff's case such o f payments by and unduly The 2010. order of was On M a r c h tried Rules of i s accordingly (Emphasis omitted.) ruled that o f Grammer's the t r i a l a jury rulings as b e i n g any medical irrelevant that Crocker's on M a r c h court entered a court noted, 9, written among and other o r a l m o t i o n s f o r a judgment as a m a t t e r c l a i m o f wantonness 11, 2010, t h e t r i a l verdict beginning i t h a d made o n m o t i o n s jury i n s t r u c t i o n s ; the t r i a l On M a r c h longer damages i n a g e n e r a l court party court "no Alabama rule one." trial the t r i a l 1975, the source 10, 2010, t h e t r i a l l a w as t o Grammer's jury's from before confirming the oral things, "notice prejudicial. case proposed the a third e x p e n s e s w o u l d be e x c l u d e d by medical as t h i s reasoning, order, A l a . Code applies, revived entitled damages," e x p l a i n i n g i t s r e a s o n the motion. that order, i n favor court entered o f Grammer a w a r d e d damages t o Grammer had been a j u d g m e n t on t h e and a g a i n s t Crocker i n t h e amount o f $ 3 6 , 5 0 0 . 3 denied. and 2090957 Crocker asserting, The 1 motion for notice of granted other medical trial a new that from offering appeal bills court trial to trial things, p r o h i b i t e d her Grammer's source. a m o t i o n f o r a new among improperly that filed had on an trial court evidence paid order June 4, 2010. court this 12, the been entered on A p r i l on July o r a l argument i n t h i s case, by a collateral Crocker's Crocker 2010; w h i c h was had indicating denying 9, 2010, filed this her court h e l d on J u n e 29, 2011. On appeal, failing trial to Crocker comply w i t h court's question of of Mobile, § that our So. 3d the 12-21-45. i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of law, 37 argues review 739, i s de 742 a trial Because statute novo. (Ala. See ( A l a . 2004), our Ala. R. Evid., supreme c o u r t , superseded our erred review presents by of a only a M a d a l o n i v. City 2009). I n S c h o e n v o g e l v. V e n a t o r Group R e t a i l , 225 court Inc., 895 So. i n holding that Rule Alabama's Dead Man's 2d 601, Statute, § " A m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l s h o u l d be f i l e d n o t l a t e r t h a n thirty (30) d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t . " Rule 5 9 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The 3 0 t h d a y f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , was Saturday, A p r i l 10, 2 0 1 0 . T h u s , C r o c k e r ' s m o t i o n f i l e d on M o n d a y , A p r i l 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , was t i m e l y . See R u l e 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 4 2090957 12-21-163, A l a . Code Court adopted 1, 1996, of Title those the of the rules supreme 1996, § stated that "when the Alabama Rules of Evidence those rules 12 1975, s u p p l a n t e d and Code 895 court 12-21-45 of So. adopted 2d a t 235 the provided, 1975 in Rules pertinent any January provisions inconsistent (emphasis Alabama Supreme] effective superseded Alabama [the added). of part, with When Evidence as i t in does today: "(a) I n a l l c i v i l a c t i o n s where damages f o r any m e d i c a l o r h o s p i t a l expenses a r e c l a i m e d and are l e g a l l y r e c o v e r a b l e f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y or death, evidence t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s medical or h o s p i t a l e x p e n s e s h a v e b e e n o r w i l l be p a i d o r r e i m b u r s e d s h a l l be a d m i s s i b l e as c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e . I n s u c h actions upon admission of evidence respecting reimbursement or payment of m e d i c a l or hospital expenses, the plaintiff shall be entitled to introduce evidence of the cost of obtaining reimbursement or payment of m e d i c a l or hospital expenses." The is trial c o u r t i n the p r e s e n t case i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h R u l e s 401 Evidence Rule and, therefore, that and concluded that § 402 i t no 12-21-45 of the Alabama Rules longer applies. 401 p r o v i d e s : " ' R e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e ' means e v i d e n c e h a v i n g any t e n d e n c y t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n y f a c t t h a t i s of consequence to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a n i t w o u l d be without the evidence." 5 of 2090957 Rule is 402 not that § provides, in pertinent part, r e l e v a n t i s not 12-21-45 admissible." conflicts with that The Rules "[e]vidence trial 401 court and 402 which reasoned because i t makes e v i d e n c e o f t h i r d - p a r t y p a y m e n t s o f c e r t a i n m e d i c a l hospital not expenses meet the admissible definition even of "relevant such evidence evidence." reasoning, the trial Under the damages plaintiff of the (Ala. is not wrongdoer." 1992). Post No. (Ala. So. 223 "as contains of not Ard, Leahey, and by (Ala. a whole 2000) (holding 681 i s a r u l e of a procedural independent So. 2d 274, 278 of law, see So. 2d 1337, component evidence was in irrelevant m e a s u r e o f damages and to the and but one 782 actions issue of the that evidence h o s p i t a l expenses unduly p r e j u d i c i a l 6 law," (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) , personal-injury 1343 the c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e substantive t h i r d - p a r t y payments of m e d i c a l admissible that a rule substantive v. amount received to 611 "an 1 9 9 6 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s b y M a r s h v . G r e e n , 2d rule v. that 57 benefits collateral Williston on American Legion by wholly Based that erred. decreased from a source does In common-law c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e r u l e , of court though and because was such appropriate to the p l a i n t i f f i f 2090957 used for other purposes. So. 2d 1141, 56, 1143 58 (Ala. Section the 666, (Ala. 12-21-45 (Ala. Civ. amount receipt of of e.g., and S m i t h v. Gribble modifies rule. App. rule the See Melvin 2009). a damages of appropriate. 1325 (Ala. particular own of See each See could awarded on not of Marsh, 782 both as to the hospital So. sides 2d medical and might adopt the So. 2d an underlying of 233 3d case a decrease plaintiff's and hospital d e c i d e , b a s e d on such a on n.2 reduction the would Corp., 619 So. 2d does not dictate be 1320, any a plaintiff's (noting to explore that the payments recovery. § expenses) . In some philosophy behind cases, the 12-21-45 equities a w a r d b a s e d on t h i r d - p a r t y 7 So. common-law e f f e c t of t h i r d - p a r t y opportunity hospital 23 of i t a l l o w s a j u r y t o make i t s expenses at Loats, i n any now 12-21-45 rather, reducing a personal-injury of 349 386 component medical A l a b a m a Gas outcome, but, and whether Section informed decision allows case, v. account payments Senn v. 1993). medical Cox, Whereas under the jury third-party facts v. substantive e x p e n s e s , u n d e r § 12-21-45 a j u r y can unique Springsteen, 1977). collateral-source the 1980); collateral-source 669 See, of payments a jury collateral- 2090957 source rule receive the So. is that benefit 2d a t 1338, the damages were n o t had payments. In who third-party would reduced already Marsh, any of relevant damages, receive Rather, under § action The in a does conflict its to Leahy, 681 decide that i t i f the compensation the form of third-party evidence of third-party m e d i c a l and h o s p i t a l expenses "fact not to a matter that is conflict with w i t h Rule 403. We 401 i n every per on to Evid. or evidence personal-injury se a d m i s s i b l e . 403, appeal A l a . R. that § Evid., 12-21-45 rule provides: " A l t h o u g h r e l e v a n t , e v i d e n c e may b e e x c l u d e d i f p r o b a t i v e value i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by 8 the 402. c o n c l u d e t h a t § 12-21-45 does That of Hence, Rule r u l e s by making references Rule Grammer a s s e r t s w i t h R u l e 403. consequence Rule to those of consequence court also and of would a p p r o p r i a t e award R u l e 4 0 1 , A l a . R. t h e m e a s u r e o f damages i t s order, conflicts the to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the trial see undue w i n d f a l l f o r the 12-21-45, § 12-21-45 conforms relating wrongdoer supra. case, i.e., 12-21-45 an to account determination of the a c t i o n . " § tortious payments, received in payments of a p l a i n t i f f ' s be for a w h i l e i n o t h e r c a s e s a j u r y may plaintiff plaintiff i t is unfair not 2090957 the danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e , c o n f u s i o n of the i s s u e s , or m i s l e a d i n g the j u r y , or by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of undue delay, waste of time, or needless p r e s e n t a t i o n of cumulative evidence." Section 12-21-45(a) introduce specifically evidence of the allows cost, i f plaintiffs any, of to obtaining reimbursement or payment of m e d i c a l or h o s p i t a l expenses. addition, § plaintiffs evidence that has their paid award. 862, See 867 12-21-45(c) they will medical Bruno's by the to a h o s p i t a l expenses 2005). can Inc. defendant and its v. to introduce third party f r o m any Massey, h o s p i t a l expenses. mechanism f o r a s s u r i n g of The any 914 prejudice third-party So. 2d that from the payments statute therefore that a p l a i n t i f f who damages Through i n t r o d u c t i o n of ameliorate medical own reimburse Supermarkets, a plaintiff introduction have or ( A l a . C i v . App. evidence, permits In of provides i s not unduly p r e j u d i c e d by a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e o f t h i r d - p a r t y payments medical No and h o s p i t a l expenses. r u l e of evidence e x p r e s s l y Grammer has conflicts of not with directed this § 12-21-45 so supersedes § 12-21-45, court as 9 to t o any rule that impliedly and directly abrogate that 2090957 statute. T h u s , we c o n c l u d e 2 Rules of Evidence 12-21-45. evidence behalf to 3 t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e Alabama d i d n o t i n a n y way d i m i n i s h t h e e f f e c t of § C r o c k e r s h o u l d have been a l l o w e d t o i n t r o d u c e i n t o third-party medical and h o s p i t a l payments made on o f Grammer, a n d s h e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a l l o w e d t o a r g u e the jury account that that of those Grammer's payments. damages should be reduced on 4 We note t h a t t h e Alabama Court o f C r i m i n a l Appeals r e c e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d i n M.L.H. v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 0 6 4 9 , J u l y 8, 2 0 1 1 ] So. 3d ( A l a . Crim. App. 2011), t h a t t h e Alabama Rules o f Evidence superseded p o r t i o n s o f t h e C h i l d P h y s i c a l a n d S e x u a l Abuse V i c t i m P r o t e c t i o n A c t ("the A c t " ) , § 15-25-30 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , r e g a r d i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n o f certain hearsay statements. Because t h e Rules o f Evidence governing the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of hearsay statements directly c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A c t c i t e d i n M.L.H., s e e So. 3 d a t , t h a t case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i n w h i c h we c o n c l u d e t h a t n o d i r e c t conflict e x i s t s between § 12-21-45 a n d t h e Alabama R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e . 2 F o r t h a t r e a s o n , we n e e d n o t d e t e r m i n e whether the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y t o " o v e r r u l e " § 12-21-45 u n d e r i t s g e n e r a l a u t h o r i t y t o a l t e r procedural s t a t u t o r y laws, but not s u b s t a n t i v e s t a t u t o r y laws. See S c h o e n v o g e l , s u p r a ( d i s c u s s i n g supreme c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y to alter procedural statutory laws, but not s u b s t a n t i v e s t a t u t o r y l a w s , b y a d o p t i n g an i n c o n s i s t e n t c o u r t r u l e ) . 3 I t a p p e a r s f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t Grammer e x h i b i t e d t o t h e j u r y a d o c u m e n t i l l u s t r a t i n g some p a y m e n t s made b y a t h i r d p a r t y ; h o w e v e r , C r o c k e r w a s n o t a l l o w e d t o i n t r o d u c e h e r own e v i d e n c e on t h a t p o i n t o r t o argue t h e e f f e c t o f t h e t h i r d p a r t y p a y m e n t s on Grammer's damages a w a r d . H e n c e , we r e j e c t any c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed h a r m l e s s e r r o r i n t h i s case. 4 10 2090957 We case r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l f o r a new t r i a l consistent with this R E V E R S E D AND Thompson, Bryan, and f o r such opinion. further c o u r t and remand t h e proceedings as a r e 5 REMANDED. P . J . , and P i t t m a n J . , concurs a n d Thomas, J J . , concur. specially. Grammer has r e q u e s t e d t h i s court t o address issues r e l a t i n g to the nature of the evidence Crocker intended to i n t r o d u c e a t t r i a l a n d i t s i m p a c t on t h e e x t e n t o f Grammer's recovery. However, those issues are not ripe f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n d we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h e m a t t h i s s t a g e o f the proceedings. 5 11 2090957 BRYAN, J u d g e , I concurring recognize medical and that specially. evidence was rule, Code by 1975. by the on Evid.) specifically rule Jonathan of Grammer (i.e., the of effect § evidence, 12-21-45, i n c l u d i n g the Rules of collateral- of such enactment evidence, addresses admission collateral-source admission legislature's No relied a l l o w i n g the However, t h e common-law which p r o h i b i t e d the abrogated Ala. t h i r d - p a r t y payments h o s p i t a l expenses c o u l d have a p r e j u d i c i a l i n p e r s o n a l - i n j u r y cases. source of rules 401-403, A l a . provision in § R. 12-21-45 of e v i d e n c e f o r m e r l y p r o h i b i t e d by the rule. "'Our c a s e s , w i t h o u t c o n f l i c t , g i v e e m p h a s i s t o the w e l l d e f i n e d r u l e t h a t " ' " s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s relating to specific subjects control general provisions relating to general subjects"'"; and "'"when t h e l a w d e s c e n d s t o p a r t i c u l a r s , s u c h m o r e s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d as exceptions t o a n y g e n e r a l r u l e s l a i d down t o t h e c o n t r a r y . " ' " ' " Ex parte E.J.M., G e t e r v. U n i t e d 770, I 773 not States (1956), agree w i t h 829 the superseded § So. 2d 105, 108-09 S t e e l C o r p . , 264 quoting i n turn other main o p i n i o n t h a t the 12-21-45. 12 ( A l a . 2001) A l a . 94, cases). Rules 97, (quoting 84 So. 2d Accordingly, of Evidence have

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.