Susan Schein Chrysler Dodge, Inc. v. Selby K. Rushing, Jr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/15/2011 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091112 Susan Schein C h r y s l e r Dodge, Inc. v. Selby K. Rushing, J r . Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-551) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . The o p i n i o n o f J a n u a r y 28, 2 0 1 1 , i s w i t h d r a w n , following i s substituted therefor. and t h e 2091112 Susan from Schein Chrysler Dodge, a judgment h o l d i n g t h a t employee of benefits Schein's t o him accident. and for injuries When the Inc. S e l b y K. awarding he ("Schein"), Rushing, appeals J r . , was workers' an compensation received i n a motor-vehicle accident occurred, Rushing was t r a n s p o r t i n g a p i c k u p t r u c k f r o m an a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r s h i p i n Jacksonville, Florida, to Schein's automobile dealership in Pelham. By a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , R u s h i n g ' s c l a i m f o r w o r k e r s ' compensation determined employee benefits by of the was trial Schein's bifurcated. c o u r t was or whether whether independent contractor 2009, presented, Rushing was the was trial court was he a h e a r i n g d u r i n g which after when he The was an acting as an was On October ore tenus an order holding an e m p l o y e e o f S c h e i n ' s and, Act"). trial Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., therefore, A l a . Code B a s e d upon t h e p a r t i e s ' s u b s e q u e n t c o u r t r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e and 2 1, evidence e n t i t l e d to a p p r o p r i a t e b e n e f i t s pursuant to the Compensation issue Rushing injured. entered first was that that he Workers' 1975 ("the submissions to the extent of the injuries 2091112 Rushing suffered in the accident d i s a b i l i t i e s , the t r i a l court entered 28, 2010, h o l d i n g that trial only court issue Schein improperly his accordingly. raises on a p p e a l determined that will record set forth the facts relevant indicates the following. retirees who delivering supplemented totally i s whether the R u s h i n g was to that Schein's Therefore, issue. The R u s h i n g was one o f numerous their or t r a n s f e r r i n g vehicles area automobile dealerships and 1 e m p l o y e e , as t h a t t e r m i s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y t h e A c t . we resulting a f i n a l j u d g m e n t on J u l y R u s h i n g was p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d and awarding b e n e f i t s The and retirement incomes by t o and from Birmingham- as t h e n e e d a r o s e . t h e f o r m e r i n v e n t o r y - c o n t r o l manager a t S c h e i n , Todd Moore, testified that i f t h e d e a l e r s h i p d i d n o t have t h e s p e c i f i c v e h i c l e a c u s t o m e r wanted, i t would attempt to locate that vehicle at another I n h i s l a w s u i t , R u s h i n g h a d a l s o named as a d e f e n d a n t t h e d r i v e r o f t h e o t h e r v e h i c l e i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t , a n d he sought underinsured-motorist benefits from Universal Underwriters I n s u r a n c e Company ( " U n i v e r s a l " ) . Before the f i n a l j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , b o t h t h e d r i v e r a n d U n i v e r s a l h a d been d i s m i s s e d from t h e a c t i o n because t h e y had r e a c h e d p r o tanto settlement agreements w i t h Rushing. The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n c a l c u l a t i n g the w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s t o w h i c h R u s h i n g was e n t i t l e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o k i n t o account the insurance proceeds Rushing a l r e a d y had r e c e i v e d from t h e t o r t f e a s o r ' s insurance carrier. 1 3 2091112 dealership. would When the v e h i c l e was l o c a t e d , to retrieve the v e h i c l e use d r i v e r s the dealership from d e a l e r s h i p , a p r o c e s s known as a d e a l e r t r a n s f e r . w o u l d r i d e i n one v e h i c l e t o t h e o t h e r the other Two d r i v e r s dealership, and then one w o u l d d r i v e t h e v e h i c l e t h e c u s t o m e r h a d o r d e r e d w h i l e t h e o t h e r w o u l d r e t u r n i n t h e same v e h i c l e u s e d t o make t h e t r i p . Moore t e s t i f i e d that, years e a r l i e r , he h a d h a d t r o u b l e f i n d i n g d r i v e r s t o make t h e d e a l e r t r a n s f e r s . A colleague at a n o t h e r d e a l e r s h i p gave h i m t h e name o f F r e d M c G r i f f , who k e p t a list 60s o f seven o r e i g h t p e o p l e - - p r i m a r i l y a n d 70s--who w o u l d make d e a l e r McGriff, of retirees i n their transfers fora flat fee. who h a d s t o p p e d d r i v i n g f o r t h e d e a l e r s h i p s h i s advanced dealerships. a g e , was n o t an Moore e x p l a i n e d employee o f any o f t h e t h a t when a d e a l e r s h i p someone t o t r a n s f e r a v e h i c l e , i t w o u l d c o n t a c t tell him i t needed McGriff and a "pick would i n turn contact up" f r o m a The p e r s o n who was c o n t a c t e d needed M c G r i f f and certain someone on t h e l i s t a s k w h e t h e r t h a t p e r s o n w o u l d be a b l e transfer. because location. of drivers t o make t h e d e a l e r had the o p t i o n of t u r n i n g down a n y r e q u e s t . Moore t e s t i f i e d t h a t he n e v e r made the the d r i v e r s . initial contact with 4 Generally, once t h e 2091112 d e a l e r - t r a n s f e r v e h i c l e had b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o t h e dealership, the dealership. driver would R u s h i n g and from the be paid payments. If a f o r m 1099 from the a payment t o a driver for a taken single and two other recall t h a t he had made d e a l e r dealerships exactly at the f o r income-tax purposes. Rushing t e s t i f i e d not check more t h a n $ 6 0 0 , t h e d e a l e r s h i p w o u l d p r o v i d e driver with could a o t h e r d r i v e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t a x e s were n o t d e l i v e r y was Schein by the when transfers, but, time making the t r a n s f e r s f o r at i n the he of had the transfers area. He said begun making accident, he least several years. for he dealer had been Rushing's t a x r e c o r d s , w h i c h were s u b m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , i n d i c a t e t h a t he n e v e r e a r n e d more t h a n $2,800 i n a y e a r transfers. On earned d r i v i n g dealer Regarding dealer h i s t a x r e t u r n s , R u s h i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t he r e t i r e d and t h a t he e a r n e d no wages and t h e money he from the dealer income transfers. in the a c c i d e n t made t h e b a s i s o f t h i s a c t i o n , R u s h i n g t e s t i f i e d that he the l i s t e d as o t h e r was received a telephone c a l l was u n s u r e w h i c h , and the trip transfer that resulted f r o m e i t h e r M c G r i f f o r Moore, t h a t he was a s k e d w h e t h e r he c o u l d make to J a c k s o n v i l l e , F l o r i d a , to obtain 5 he a pickup truck 2091112 for Schein. Schein's Rushing number Rushing agreed to the t r i p dealerships with of the t o meet make, the pickup with model, truck and went t o one o f Moore. and Moore provided vehicle-identification Rushing was to bring back to S c h e i n ' s d e a l e r s h i p , as w e l l as i n s u r a n c e d o c u m e n t s , documents t h a t would enable him t o t r a n s f e r t i t l e , a dealer tag to place on to the pickup dealership. truck, and On some o c c a s i o n s , check t o give to the dealership a v e h i c l e ; other times, by arrived the time vehicle. directions He he R u s h i n g s a i d , he was g i v e n f r o m w h i c h he was r e t r i e v i n g a t the d e a l e r s h i p s a i d he c o u l d to pick up the n o t r e c a l l w h i c h method h a d b e e n R u s h i n g t e s t i f i e d t h a t Moore a l s o t o l d h i m t o go t o S c h e i n ' s C h e v r o l e t with a t h e v e h i c l e a l r e a d y had been p a i d f o r u s e d on t h e t r i p a t i s s u e . was p r o v i d e d the J a c k s o n v i l l e d e a l e r s h i p , where R u s h i n g the "chase c a r , "t h a t i s , the c a r Rushing would use t o t r a v e l t o J a c k s o n v i l l e . Rushing were said that, generally, instructed to inspect retrieve. for Schein, On t h e o c c a s i o n s dealer-transfer the v e h i c l e s they were drivers sent to he was d r i v i n g a t r a n s f e r v e h i c l e R u s h i n g s a i d , i f a v e h i c l e was damaged o r was i n p o o r r e p a i r , he w o u l d c a l l Moore a n d d e s c r i b e t h e p r o b l e m w i t h 6 2091112 the vehicle. The decision whether to bring the damaged v e h i c l e back to Schein r e s t e d w i t h Moore, R u s h i n g s a i d . testified had that, directions to although the Jacksonville s h o r t e r or b e t t e r r o u t e , than obeying Moore traffic he was provided dealership, him if he knew and speed limits, have t o stop to follow. after traveling a meals required when to and where deliver the they other dealer- For example, d r i v e r s d i d not c e r t a i n amount o f time, nor They c o u l d stop were t h e y r e q u i r e d t o r e s t f o r a s e t p e r i o d . for a Rushing s a i d , S c h e i n d i d n o t have any r u l e s o r g u i d e l i n e s t h a t t r a n s f e r d r i v e r s had with free to take i t . A l s o , regulations He wished, transfer and vehicles they by a were set not time, a l t h o u g h t h e y were t o have them d e l i v e r e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time. Rushing said that when he learned that he t r a v e l i n g t o J a c k s o n v i l l e , he c a l l e d a f r i e n d , who would also on M c G r i f f ' s l i s t o f d e a l e r - t r a n s f e r d r i v e r s , t o accompany him on the to t r i p down and Pelham. Jacksonville As on who would then d r i v e Schein's v e h i c l e back Rushing the was be was return driving trip 7 to the pickup Pelham, he truck was from in a 2091112 collision with a n o t h e r v e h i c l e on I n t e r s t a t e 85 i n O p e l i k a . Rushing s u f f e r e d serious After holding injuries the hearing, the i n the trial accident. court entered an order t h a t R u s h i n g was an e m p l o y e e o f S c h e i n ' s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t and t h a t he was n o t an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r . Specifically, Rushing with the t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t S c h e i n had a vehicle to transport dealership; that him t o the J a c k s o n v i l l e i t had suggested the route t a k e t o and f r o m J a c k s o n v i l l e ; t h a t with insurance documents and a provided R u s h i n g was i t had p r o v i d e d dealer to Rushing tag f o r the pickup t r u c k ; t h a t i t h a d d i r e c t e d R u s h i n g i n t h e manner i n w h i c h he was t o i n s p e c t t h e p i c k u p t r u c k b e f o r e and that, i f the v e h i c l e appeared taking possession t o be damaged, r e p a i r , o r d i d n o t have a l l o f i t s d e s i g n a t e d in ofi t i l l - accessories, he was t o c a l l Moore f o r f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s and was r e q u i r e d t o t a k e d i r e c t i o n f r o m Moore. In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l court found t h a t Schein had p a i d Rushing by check f o r each d e a l e r - t r a n s f e r trip he h a d made and t h a t Rushing expenses i n c u r r e d d u r i n g the t r i p s . court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t R u s h i n g "was how h i s m i s s i o n had been In other words, the t r i a l given was t o be p e r f o r m e d o t h e r 8 reimbursed f o r no d i s c r e t i o n as t o than that exercised 2091112 by any driver o f any vehicle o p e r a t e d on the public way." A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d , R u s h i n g was an e m p l o y e e and n o t an i n d e p e n d e n t Schein appeals contractor. from the judgment of the trial court, c o n t e n d i n g t h a t i t e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t R u s h i n g was i t s e m p l o y e e r a t h e r t h a n an i n d e p e n d e n t contractor. " S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s the s t a n d a r d o f review i n a w o r k e r s ' compensation case: "'(1) In r e v i e w i n g the s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f s e t f o r t h h e r e i n and o t h e r l e g a l issues, r e v i e w by the Court of Civil A p p e a l s s h a l l be w i t h o u t a p r e s u m p t i o n o f correctness. "'(2) In r e v i e w i n g pure f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , the f i n d i n g of the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l n o t be r e v e r s e d i f t h a t f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . ' " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s ' e v i d e n c e o f such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . "'Our review is restricted to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the t r i a l c o u r t ' s factual findings are supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2). T h i s s t a t u t o r i l y mandated s c o p e o f r e v i e w does n o t p e r m i t t h i s c o u r t to r e v e r s e the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment based on a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t u a l f i n d i n g on t h e 9 2091112 ground t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports a contrary factual finding; rather, i t p e r m i t s t h i s c o u r t t o r e v e r s e the trial court's judgment only i f its factual f i n d i n g i s not s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. See Ex p a r t e M & D Mech. C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . , 725 So. 2d 292 (Ala. 1 9 9 8 ) . A t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on c o n f l i c t i n g evidence are c o n c l u s i v e i f they are supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Edwards v. J e s s e S t u t t s , I n c . , 655 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . ' " L a n d e r s v. Lowe's Home C t r s . , I n c . , [14] So. 3d [144, 151] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). 'This c o u r t ' s r o l e i s not t o reweigh the evidence, but t o a f f i r m the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t i f i t s f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and, i f s o , i f t h e c o r r e c t l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s a r e drawn therefrom.' B o s t r o m S e a t i n g , I n c . v. A d d e r h o l d , 852 So. 2d 784, 794 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " M a s t e r B r a n d C a b i n e t s , I n c . v. Ruggs, 10 So. 3d 13, 16-17 Civ. App. It 2008). i s well workers' (Ala. e s t a b l i s h e d law compensation case, that, when i n the determining context of whether a an employer-employee r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s , the c o u r t s w i l l l o o k to whether the purported employer has reserved the right to c o n t r o l t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e w o r k e r p e r f o r m s t h e d u t i e s o f t h e work. 431 A t c h i s o n v. Boone N e w s p a p e r s , I n c . , 981 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). " ' " [ F ] o r one t o be an e m p l o y e e , t h e o t h e r p a r t y must r e t a i n t h e r i g h t t o d i r e c t 10 427, 2091112 t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e b u s i n e s s s h a l l be done, as well as the result to be a c c o m p l i s h e d or, i n o t h e r words, not o n l y what s h a l l be done, b u t how i t s h a l l be done."' " W h i t e v. Henshaw, 363 So. 2d 986, 988 (Ala. Civ. App. 1978) ( q u o t i n g Weeks v. C.L. D i c k e r t Lumber Co., 270 A l a . 713, 714, 121 So. 2d 894, 895 (1960)). In determining 'whether [an individual] is an independent contractor or whether an employer-employee r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s , the court l o o k s to the r e s e r v e d r i g h t of c o n t r o l r a t h e r than the a c t u a l e x e r c i s e of c o n t r o l . ' T u r n i p s e e d v. M c C a f f e r t y , 521 So. 2d 31, 32 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987). I f t h e r i g h t o f c o n t r o l e x t e n d s no f u r t h e r t h a n d i r e c t i n g what i s t o be u l t i m a t e l y a c c o m p l i s h e d , an employer-employee r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not established; h o w e v e r , ' i f an i n d i v i d u a l r e t a i n s t h e r i g h t t o d i r e c t t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e t a s k i s t o be done o r i f t h a t i n d i v i d u a l does i n f a c t d i c t a t e t h e manner o f o p e r a t i o n , t h e n an e m p l o y e r - e m p l o y e e r e l a t i o n s h i p is established.' I d . a t 33. The f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l o r an e n t i t y has r e t a i n e d t h e r i g h t o f c o n t r o l i n c l u d e : (1) d i r e c t e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g a r i g h t o r an e x e r c i s e o f c o n t r o l ; (2) t h e method o f payment f o r s e r v i c e s ; (3) w h e t h e r e q u i p m e n t i s f u r n i s h e d ; and (4) whether the other party has the right to t e r m i n a t e t h e employment. See Ex p a r t e C u r r y , 607 So. 2d 230 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " Atchison v. Furthermore, establish basis.' Boone N e w s p a p e r s , "'[t]he employee Luallen v. Inc., retention status Noojin, is So. So. 2d control determined 545 11 of 981 2d on 775, at 431-32. necessary a 776 to case-by-case (Ala. Civ. 2091112 App. 1989)." Civ. App. In reaching i t s decision court, i n which judgment and, Rushing our signed a lease was court Schein's judgment of compensation benefits t o an agreement w i t h drove cargo the trial injured In Curry, a the defendant, contracts for Interstate. customer would f o r the pay man p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h he o b t a i n e d a Id. at 233. cargo that Interstate, Id. would he Interstate Interstate the d r i v e r which Our c o n t r o l over the cargo. a l s o t o l d t h e d r i v e r how t o h a n d l e t h e c a r g o . the an Interstate d r i v e r b y c o n t r o l l i n g what l o a d s he p i c k e d up, where booked 2d this t h e w o r k e r was and n o t an e m p l o y e e . p i c k e d them up, and where he d e l i v e r e d The (Ala. reversed supreme c o u r t f o u n d t h a t I n t e r s t a t e h a d e x e r c i s e d the 1027 the Express, Inc. ("Interstate"), and supreme d r i v e r , on t h e g r o u n d t h a t independent contractor truck that i n turn, denying workers' worker, a truck had 2d 1024, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d on Ex p a r t e C u r r y , 607 So. ( A l a . 1992), court's So. 2006). employee, 230 S a r t i n v. Madden, 955 hauled. retain a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d s and pay t h e d r i v e r t h e r e m a i n d e r . Thus, the supreme d r i v e r ' s payment. court Id. held, Interstate 12 Interstate controlled a l s o p r o v i d e d equipment the to 2091112 the d r i v e r , including the truck insurance required, and t h e v a r i o u s and i t p a i d f u e l and m i l e a g e t a x e s . d r i v e r a l s o had t h e r i g h t t o end t h e l e a s e days' written notice. quoted i n Atchison held that As can In applying d i d not support create an employer-employee L u a l l e n v. N o o j i n , previously o u r supreme the t r i a l t h a t t h e d r i v e r was an i n d e p e n d e n t t h i s court noted i n S a r t i n , "'[n]o court court's contractor. one f a c t b y i t s e l f relationship.'" 545 So. 2d a t 776.) The a g r e e m e n t upon 30 the factors t o the f a c t s i n Curry, the evidence determination p e r m i t s and (Quoting In t h i s case, although i t i s true t h a t Schein s u p p l i e d Rushing w i t h a "chase" car, a dealer t a g , and i n s u r a n c e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t s c o n t r o l o v e r R u s h i n g e x t e n d e d no f u r t h e r t h a n d i r e c t i n g what R u s h i n g was ultimately vehicle to accomplish, from dealership. transfer i . e . , the transfer of a the dealership McGriff, drivers t h e man transfer transfer. that dealerships who maintained a n d who was n o t a S c h e i n R u s h i n g ' s name f r o m t h e l i s t particular i n Jacksonville McGriff to specific Schein's the l i s t employee, of chose o f p o s s i b l e d r i v e r s t o make t h i s Rushing could offered, and f o r w h i c h he w o u l d d r i v e . 13 accept he or decline could Rushing, choose any the not Schein, 2091112 chose the i n d i v i d u a l Rushing could t r a v e l from J a c k s o n v i l l e . a l o n g t h e way. Rushing who would a n y r o u t e he c h o s e He was f r e e i n t h e chase c a r . f o rthe t r i p t o and t o make a n y s t o p s he w i s h e d When t h e d e l i v e r y was made a n d S c h e i n h a d p a i d f o r the transfer, S c h e i n a n d R u s h i n g h a d no f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n s t o one a n o t h e r . of travel None o f t h e s t a n d a r d f o r m a l i t i e s employment e x i s t i n t h i s c a s e . F o r example, Rushing a p p l i e d f o r a j o b w i t h S c h e i n ; he d i d n o t c o m p l e t e never income-tax w i t h h o l d i n g f o r m s ; t h e r e was no "employment" f r o m w h i c h S c h e i n could terminate Rushing; and R u s h i n g h a d no s c h e d u l e d work h o u r s , no h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e , a n d no v a c a t i o n s o r h o l i d a y s . In s h o r t , R u s h i n g made d e a l e r t r a n s f e r s when a n d i f he d e s i r e d , for whom he d e s i r e d . Based upon h i s t a x r e t u r n s , Rushing r e c o g n i z e d t h a t he was n o t an " e m p l o y e e " o f S c h e i n ' s o r a n y other automobile dealer. before the accident, From t h e r e c o r d , neither party S c h e i n t o have an e m p l o y e r - e m p l o y e e In reviewing the t o t a l i t y i t appears considered Rushing that, and relationship. of the evidence i n t h i s case, see S a r t i n , s u p r a , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t R u s h i n g was an e m p l o y e e o f S c h e i n ' s a n d n o t an independent contractor i s not 14 supported by substantial 2091112 evidence. Accordingly, t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l reversed, and t h e cause i s remanded judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s APPLICATION OVERRULED; WITHDRAWN; OPINION Pittman Thomas court i s f o r the entry of a opinion. OPINION SUBSTITUTED; OF JANUARY 28, 2 0 1 1 , REVERSED AND REMANDED. and Bryan, J J . , concur. a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 15 i n the result, without

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.