Victoria Louise Tanner v. Chassity Greech Ebbole d/b/a LA Body Art (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-08-1135)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/23/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2091121 V i c t o r i a L o u i s e Tanner v. C h a s s i t y Greech Ebbole d/b/a LA Body A r t 2100172 Demented Needle, LLC, and Paul A v e r e t t e , J r . v. C h a s s i t y Greech Ebbole d/b/a LA Body A r t Appeals from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-1135) PITTMAN, Judge. C h a s s i t y Greech Ebbole i s t h e p r o p r i e t o r o f LA Body A r t , a t a t t o o and b o d y - p i e r c i n g b u s i n e s s t h a t , p r i o r t o t h e events 2091121; 2100172 leading to the underlying a c t i o n , had Dauphin S t r e e t i n M o b i l e s i n c e been o p e r a t i n g 1995. Paul Averette, t h e p r o p r i e t o r o f Demented N e e d l e , LLC, body-piercing business that S t r e e t i n M o b i l e i n May business to Reginald another Weaver, fictitiously slander, The named libel, slander defendants 1 had and 2007. Demented falsely and t h a t she had allegation that the had The Jr., is The at 205 Ebbole maliciously hepatitis and and Dauphin moved her and sued Averette, LLC, and several complaint asserted claims. b a s e d upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t and diseases diseases. Needle, invasion-of-privacy that those 2008 , Mobile defendants. things, to in 221 a competing t a t t o o operating In location c l a i m was Ebbole began at stated, other among the other communicable e x p o s e d h e r c u s t o m e r s a t LA Body A r t libel defendants claim had was posted based in the upon the Demented N e e d l e shop an a l t e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E b b o l e ' s t a t t o o work, with let the s t a t e m e n t , "L.A. Body A r t - C h a s s i t y ' s t h i s happen t o you o r anyone you know!" The work. Don't invasion-of- E b b o l e a l l e g e d t h a t Weaver was an owner, o p e r a t o r , or e m p l o y e e o f Demented N e e d l e , LLC. Weaver n e v e r a n s w e r e d t h e complaint, and the t r i a l court l a t e r entered a default j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t him. 1 2 2091121; 2100172 privacy claim was based upon the allegation that the d e f e n d a n t s had a p p r o p r i a t e d a p l a s t e r c a s t of E b b o l e ' s t o r s o , had adorned i t with satanic symbols, and had used i t as a m a n n e q u i n f o r d i s p l a y i n g Demented N e e d l e T - s h i r t s f o r s a l e . In August Victoria amended the complaint to as a d e f e n d a n t . E b b o l e a s s e r t e d an e m p l o y e e o f Demented N e e d l e and t h a t T a n n e r libel Specifically, "MySpace" Ebbole L o u i s e Tanner T a n n e r was committed 2009, Web and h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d Ebbole page alleged false that and in a civil Tanner malicious had add that had conspiracy. p o s t e d on statements her that q u e s t i o n e d E b b o l e ' s s k i l l as a t a t t o o a r t i s t and b o d y p i e r c e r . E b b o l e f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t Tanner had c o n s p i r e d w i t h A v e r e t t e and Demented N e e d l e t o d e p r i v e E b b o l e o f b u s i n e s s and t o c a u s e her mental anguish. A f t e r the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t Weaver, see s u p r a n o t e 1, E b b o l e ' s c l a i m s against Averette, T a n n e r and Demented N e e d l e , LLC ( " t h e d e f e n d a n t s " ) , w e r e t r i e d to a j u r y . The d e f e n d a n t s moved f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w ("JML") a t t h e c l o s e o f t h e E b b o l e ' s c a s e and a t t h e c l o s e of a l l the evidence. The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e JML The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t a w a r d i n g E b b o l e z e r o 3 motions. compensatory 2091121; 2100172 damages from damages as any of follows: the defendants but awarding punitive $200,000 a g a i n s t Demented N e e d l e , $100,000 a g a i n s t A v e r e t t e ; and $10,000 a g a i n s t T a n n e r . LLC; Over the defendants' o b j e c t i o n s , the t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d to accept t h e v e r d i c t , r e c h a r g e d t h e j u r o r s , and forms, i n s t r u c t i n g them as gave them new verdict follows: "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . L a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , ... [ t ] h e r e a s o n I s e n t you a l l b a c k i s what we g o t f r o m y ' a l l i s t e c h n i c a l l y an i m p r o p e r v e r d i c t f o r m II "To r e m i n d you a g a i n you see f r o m y o u r f o r m , t h e r e a r e two t y p e s o f damages, c o m p e n s a t o r y damages and p u n i t i v e damages C o m p e n s a t o r y damages a r e meant t o c o m p e n s a t e an i n j u r e d p a r t y . P u n i t i v e damages a r e meant t o p u n i s h a p a r t y c o m m i t t i n g a w r o n g and t o d e t e r t h a t p a r t y f r o m committing s i m i l a r w r o n g s and a l s o t o d e t e r p e r h a p s o t h e r f o l k s from c o m m i t t i n g s i m i l a r wrongs i n the f u t u r e . " A l l r i g h t . I n o r d e r t o a w a r d p u n i t i v e damages t h e r e must be ... an a w a r d o f some amount o f c o m p e n s a t o r y damages. I f you f i n d t h a t [ E b b o l e ] has proven each element of the c l a i m s f o r l i b e l and/or s l a n d e r o r t h e o t h e r c l a i m s under t h e law t h a t I've g i v e n you b u t you f i n d t h a t [ E b b o l e ] has n o t p r o v e n any s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u r y c a u s e d by t h e statements c o m p l a i n e d o f o r by t h e o t h e r a c t s c o m p l a i n e d o f , t h e n you may f i n d f o r [ E b b o l e ] and a w a r d n o m i n a l compensatory damages to [Ebbole]. Nominal compensatory damages a r e damages i n a v e r y s m a l l amount, u s u a l l y one d o l l a r , and t h e i r m a i n p u r p o s e i s t o v i n d i c a t e [ E b b o l e ] and h e r r e p u t a t i o n by showing t h a t [Ebbole] p r e v a i l e d . " 4 2091121; 2100172 A f t e r being r e i n s t r u c t e d , the j u r y returned a v e r d i c t awarding c o m p e n s a t o r y damages o f $1 a g a i n s t e a c h o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s and leaving trial i n place the o r i g i n a l The c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e j u r y ' s second v e r d i c t and e n t e r e d a judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . for p u n i t i v e - d a m a g e s awards. a JML The d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d or, alternatively, remittitur; only postjudgment Averette, their requested new postjudgment a n d Demented N e e d l e a trial motions or hearing for a motion. After Tanner for a renewed on m o t i o n s were d e n i e d , appealed. The her Tanner, supreme court t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t a k e n by A v e r e t t e a n d Demented N e e d l e t o t h i s c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , a n d i t was consolidated directly to this with Tanner's appeal, which was taken court. S t a n d a r d o f Review Our supreme c o u r t h a s o u t l i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d o f review f o r a r u l i n g on a JML m o t i o n : "'"When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n i t i a l l y i n d e c i d i n g whether t o g r a n t or deny t h e m o t i o n f o r a JML. P a l m H a r b o r Homes, I n c . v. C r a w f o r d , 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . R e g a r d i n g q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , t h e u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e nonmovant h a s p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o 5 2091121; 2100172 a l l o w t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . C a r t e r v. H e n d e r s o n , 598 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . The nonmovant must have p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n order to withstand a motion f o r a JML. See § 12-21-12, A l a . Code 1975; 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 . 1989). A reviewing court must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y . C a r t e r , 598 So. 2d a t 1353. In r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t v i e w s t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw. Id. Regarding a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , h o w e v e r , t h i s C o u r t i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s ruling. R i c w i l , I n c . v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So. 2d 1126 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " ' " N o r f o l k S o u t h e r n Ry. Co. v. J o h n s o n , 2011] , So. 3d I n c . v. M i l l e r , ( A l a . 2011) 46 So. 3d 434, 450-51 t u r n W a d d e l l & Reed, I n c . v. U n i t e d 875 So. 2d 1143, The first 1152 two an ( q u o t i n g CSX 11, Transp., ( A l a . 2010), q u o t i n g i n Investors L i f e Ins. Co., ( A l a . 2003)). i s s u e s t o be c o n s i d e r e d r a i s e d o n l y by A v e r e t t e involves [Ms. 1090011, M a r c h arguments and Demented N e e d l e ; t h e t h i r d argument r a i s e d o n l y i s s u e i n v o l v e s arguments involve by Tanner; r a i s e d by a l l t h r e e 6 and the issue fourth appellants. 2091121; 2100172 I. Refusal to Accept A v e r e t t e and Demented N e e d l e erred i n refusing assessed zero the F i r s t to accept compensatory argue t h a t the t r i a l A v e r e t t e and Demented N e e d l e court first the j u r y ' s damages Verdict which verdict, a g a i n s t the contend t h a t Ebbole presented e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g e i t h e r t h a t h e r b u s i n e s s had economic loss or emotional distress that as defendants. she had a result personally of the suffered suffered defendants' no an any conduct. A c c o r d i n g l y , they say, the f i r s t v e r d i c t r e f l e c t e d the j u r o r s ' f i n d i n g t h a t E b b o l e s i m p l y s u f f e r e d no c o m p e n s a b l e i n j u r y , the second verdict, they d e s i r e , a f t e r the t r i a l damages, t o a w a r d suggest, is attributable $1 and to leave the courtroom submitted her 2004 t h r o u g h 2004 t h r o u g h federal 2008. 2007 was t o $20,009 income-tax average i s not law. r e t u r n s f o r the income f o r t h e years income f o r a single I n 2008, h o w e v e r , E b b o l e ' s income $30,122, w i t h no y e a r f a l l i n g b e l o w $28,000. dropped Her and T h a t argument i s n e i t h e r b o r n e o u t by t h e r e c o r d n o r s u p p o r t e d by A l a b a m a years a c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g nominal s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . Ebbole to and -- a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - t h i r d l e s s t h a n average of the p r e v i o u s f o u r y e a r s . 7 the E b b o l e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she 2091121; 2100172 had suffered from nausea and d e p r e s s i o n and had c o n s u l t e d a p s y c h i a t r i s t as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' c o n d u c t . Moreover, special would even damages, be such presumed slanderous per se. per i f Ebbole h a d p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e o f as l o s t income, because the h e r g e n e r a l damages defendants' "[W]hen t h e p l a i n t i f f s e , t h e l a w presumes injury words has proven to reputation slanderous per compensatory se, a damages "Once a c o m m u n i c a t i o n plaintiff without proof may r e p u t a t i o n o r p r o o f o f a n y o t h e r harm." Inc. v. S t a f f o r d , 840 So. i s f o u n d t o be recover of actual slander and mental s u f f e r i n g . " L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. v . D a u g h e r t y , 2d 152, 162 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . were nominal harm or toh i s D e l t a H e a l t h Group, 887 So. 2 d 887, 897 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . "'When w o r d s a r e s l a n d e r o u s i n t h e m s e l v e s , t h e r i g h t t o damages f o l l o w s a s a c o n s e q u e n c e f r o m s p e a k i n g i n a s l a n d e r o u s way, b e c a u s e i t i s t h e i n c a l c u l a b l e tendency of slander t o i n j u r e t h e person slandered, in h i s reputation, profession, trade, or business. I t would f r e q u e n t l y be d i f f i c u l t t o p r o v e any p e c u n i a r y i n j u r y from s l a n d e r , and always i m p o s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h i t s f u l l e x t e n t . ... T h e r e f o r e , when words a r e a c t i o n a b l e i n t h e m s e l v e s , t h e l a w i m p l i e s damages.' J o h n s o n v. R o b e r t s o n , 8 P o r t . [(Ala.) 486,] 489 [ ( 1 8 3 9 ) ] Webb v . G r a y , 181 A l a . 408, 413, 62 So. 194, 196 (1913) ( q u o t e d i n J o h n s o n P u b l ' g Co. v . D a v i s , 271 A l a . 474, 488, 124 8 2091121; 2100172 So. 2d 441, 451 Torts § 572 (1960)). (1977) See a l s o R e s t a t e m e n t (stating that s l a n d e r t h a t imputes t o another or other loathsome "[o]ne who (Second) o f publishes an e x i s t i n g v e n e r e a l and communicable disease disease i s subject l i a b i l i t y w i t h o u t p r o o f o f s p e c i a l h a r m " ) ; a n d § 573 affect his fitness business, without trade proof f o r the proper or profession of s p e c i a l II. Ebbole's ... of another adversely of h i s i s subject to lawful liability harm"). Good C o u n t / B a d C o u n t complaint stated claims Demented N e e d l e i n t h r e e c o u n t s , invasion conduct to (stating t h a t " [ o ] n e who p u b l i s h e s a s l a n d e r t h a t a s c r i b e s t o conduct, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or a c o n d i t i o n t h a t would a privacy. In against namely: their JML Averette and slander, l i b e l , and motions, Averette and Demented N e e d l e c h a l l e n g e d t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o support and the each count. jury The t r i a l rendered a court denied general t h e JML m o t i o n s , verdict. Averette and Demented N e e d l e a r g u 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 must be reversed on the basis of the good-count/bad-count d i s c u s s e d i n A s p i n w a l l v. Gowens, 405 So. 2d 134 In A s p i n w a l l , t h e supreme c o u r t 9 explained: rule ( A l a . 1981) . 2091121; 2100172 " [ I ] f a c o m p l a i n t h a s more t h a n one c o u n t and t h e defendant believes that the evidence i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t one o r more o f t h o s e c o u n t s , he must c h a l l e n g e t h i s b y m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t [now a m o t i o n f o r a JML, s e e R u l e 50, A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , s p e c i f y i n g t h e c o u n t w h i c h i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e and d e t a i l i n g w i t h s p e c i f i c i t y t h e g r o u n d s upon w h i c h t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o u n t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . I f t h i s i s n o t done and a l l c o u n t s go t o t h e j u r y a n d a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t i s r e t u r n e d , t h e c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t t h e v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d on a v a l i d c o u n t . " 405 So. 2d a t 138 count/bad-count d i s c u s s e d below, (on a p p l i c a t i o n situation f o r rehearing). A good- i s not p r e s e n t e d here because, t h e e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of each count as was sufficient. A. The S l a n d e r C o u n t A v e r e t t e a n d Demented N e e d l e a r g u e t h a t a l l t h e a l l e g e d l y slanderous s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g E b b o l e were made e i t h e r Weaver o r b y T a n n e r . by Weaver asserts, times, Demented N e e d l e c o n t e n d s t h a t s t a t e m e n t s and Tanner cannot a l t h o u g h Weaver as t a t t o o artists be and imputed Tanner t o i t because, i t worked, at a t t h e Demented N e e d l e were i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s , r a t h e r t h a n e m p l o y e e s o f Demented N e e d l e . by different shop, they or agents A c c o r d i n g l y , A v e r e t t e a n d Demented N e e d l e i n s i s t t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a JML on t h e s l a n d e r c o u n t . 10 2091121; 2100172 T h a t a r g u m e n t i s due t o be r e j e c t e d b e c a u s e t h e p r e m i s e that t h e y r e l y upon -- t h a t a l l t h e a l l e g e d l y s l a n d e r o u s s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g E b b o l e were made e i t h e r b y Weaver o r b y T a n n e r -¬ is factually incorrect. Ebbole presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t many o f t h e s l a n d e r o u s s t a t e m e n t s were made b y himself, and A v e r e t t e either that Averette Needle or that and Demented i s an agent Averette's Needle do not o r employee o f statements c a n be Averette contest Demented attributed to Demented N e e d l e . David Schneider t e s t i f i e d that i n A p r i l 2008 he went t o t h e l o c a t i o n where LA Body A r t h a d b e e n , saw t h a t t h e shop was closed, and w a l k e d down t h e s t r e e t shop, where he a s k e d a man Averette) (whom he i d e n t i f i e d i f he knew where E b b o l e was. E b b o l e "had AIDS a n d ... was d e a d . " Averette then stated that t o t h e Demented Averette According Needle at t r i a l as answered t h a t to Schneider, E b b o l e had had h e p a t i t i s and had "probably i n f e c t e d a l o t of people that she's g i v e n tattoos t o " a n d t h a t , " e v e r y t i m e she t a t t o o e d somebody, she h a d b l o o d all over h e r . " Danny Pike Mobile looking testified that i n early f o r a j o b as a t a t t o o a r t i s t 11 2008 he came to and i n t e n d e d to 2091121; 2100172 contact Ebbole. mistake and P i k e w a l k e d i n t o t h e Demented N e e d l e shop asked f o r Ebbole. i d e n t i f i e d at t r i a l as A v e r e t t e ) t h e wrong shop, Pike "didn't that need a man (whom responded t h a t Pike [ E b b o l e ] was Pike "was down t h e s t r e e t , " b u t in that t o w o r k f o r h e r anyway, t h a t e v e r y b o d y i n M o b i l e knew t h a t she h a d P a t r i c i a Ann There, by hepatitis." Williams, who had had s e v e r a l t a t t o o s done by E b b o l e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t she went t o t h e LA Body A r t shop t o g e t a n o t h e r t a t t o o by E b b o l e . shop was Needle shop Williams she not open and asked i f Ebbole i d e n t i f i e d at t r i a l saw t h a t E b b o l e ' s she entered the had moved. A as A v e r e t t e ) Demented man (whom t o l d Williams Ebbole because Ebbole that used n e e d l e s " and h a d " s y p h i l i s and g o n o r r h e a and A I D S . " At t r i a l , not Ebbole presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g that suffering communicable that f o r business, d i d " n o t want t o mess w i t h " "nasty was When W i l l i a m s disease. the evidence of count t o the from The AIDS, trial slander was jury. 12 hepatitis, court or correctly any she other determined s u f f i c i e n t t o submit that 2091121; 2100172 B. Ebbole presented displayed tattoo The L i b e l evidence Count i n d i c a t i n g that i n t h e Demented N e e d l e shop a p o s t e r done b y E b b o l e . On t h e p o s t e r , Averette of a p o r t r a i t the p i c t u r e p o r t r a i t t a t t o o was a c c o m p a n i e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g w o r d s : Body A r t - C h a s s i t y ' s anyone y o u know!" a letter work. Averette had of the "L.A. Don't l e t t h i s happen t o y o u o r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d from Ebbole's counsel, stating, i n pertinent part: " T h i s l e t t e r i s t o p l a c e y o u on n o t i c e t h a t my c l i e n t has l e a r n e d o f c e r t a i n s l a n d e r o u s statements made b y y o u a n d / o r y o u r e m p l o y e e s . I t h a s come t o Ms. E b b o l e ' s a t t e n t i o n t h a t d e r o g a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s have b e e n made a b o u t t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l q u a l i t y o f LA Body A r t ' s work a n d h e r h e a l t h i n p a r t i c u l a r . She has b e e n a d v i s e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t s have b e e n made b y you o r y o u r e m p l o y e e s t h a t s h e h a s h e p a t i t i s a n d t h a t p r o s p e c t i v e c l i e n t s o f LA Body A r t w o u l d be e x p o s e d t o t h i s d i s e a s e i f t h e y go t o LA Body A r t f o r t h e i r t a t t o o s . These s t a t e m e n t s a r e u n t r u e and f a l s e . Demand i s h e r e b y made p u r s u a n t t o A l a b a m a Code § 6-5-186 f o r f u l l a n d f a i r r e t r a c t i o n o f s u c h c h a r g e s a n d m a t t e r s . I n a d d i t i o n , we demand on behalf of Ms. Ebbole that such statements i m m e d i a t e l y cease and d e s i s t . I f a f u l l and f a i r r e t r a c t i o n i s n o t made w i t h i n f i v e d a y s a s r e q u i r e d by l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , Ms. E b b o l e w i l l pursue her a v a i l a b l e l e g a l a l t e r n a t i v e s . " E b b o l e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d done a p o r t r a i t t a t t o o s i m i l a r t o t h e one p i c t u r e d on t h e p o s t e r , 13 b u t , she s a i d , t h e s h a d i n g 2091121; 2100172 of the p o r t r a i t t a t t o o on t h e p o s t e r a p p e a r e d t o have been altered. Averette a n d Demented N e e d l e c o n t e n d t h a t E b b o l e to prove that the poster Ebbole admitted accompanying failed was l i b e l o u s b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , (1) t h a t s h e h a d done t h e t a t t o o a n d (2) t h e words the commercial speech. tattoo are We d i s a g r e e . constitutionally First, protected we n o t e t h a t Ebbole a c k n o w l e d g e d m e r e l y t h a t she h a d done a t a t t o o s i m i l a r t o t h e one p i c t u r e d on t h e p o s t e r , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e s h a d i n g on t h e t a t t o o p i c t u r e d on t h e p o s t e r a p p e a r e d t o have been a l t e r e d . Second, a s i d e from t h e c o n c l u s o r y the poster Averette constitute s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e w o r d s on constitutionally a n d Demented N e e d l e a u t h o r i t y i n support of t h e i r protected make no a r g u m e n t speech, and c i t e commercial-speech a s s e r t i o n . " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [, A l a . R. App. P.] r e q u i r e s t h a t arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . Moore v . P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v s . Ltd. P'ship, 849 So. 2d 914, 923 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; A r r i n g t o n v . M a t h i s , 929 So. 2d 468, 470 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Hamm v . S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 'This i s so, because " ' i t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s legal research o r t o make a n d a d d r e s s legal a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d general p r o p o s i t i o n s not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y 14 no 2091121; 2100172 o r a r g u m e n t . ' " ' Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2007) (quoting B u t l e r v . Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " White 1058 Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d 1042, ( A l a . 2008). The t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d presented was with respect t h a t a j u r y i s s u e was t o w h e t h e r t h e m a t e r i a l on t h e p o s t e r libelous. C. Ebbole The I n v a s i o n - o f - P r i v a c y C o u n t alleged that Averette a n d Demented Needle had i n v a d e d h e r p r i v a c y b y a p p r o p r i a t i n g a w h i t e p l a s t e r body c a s t of h e r t o r s o , adorning as for a mannequin sale. and on w h i c h t o d i s p l a y Demented cast t h e body pentagrams, s a t a n i c symbols, and u s i n g i t Needle T - s h i r t s The e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a l o c a l made t h e body adorned i t with and had g i v e n cast attached with black i t to Averette. black roses and wings and " d e v i l ' s identifying d i d not have a face, i t as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n established that Averette or of toi t , Although the other of Ebbole, routinely told 15 any Averette drawings horns" d i s p l a y e d Demented N e e d l e T - s h i r t s on i t . mannequin a r t i s t had features the evidence customers and other 2091121; 2100172 individuals who m a n n e q u i n was f a r as entered the a body c a s t to t e l l go [Ebbole] responded Averette s p e l l s on stand was Needle Ebbole. Averette Danny P i k e , when P i k e w h e r e a b o u t s , t h a t i f he could of Demented up that there said, "that's at was the no talk front one to i n q u i r e d as of [Ebbole] the there, a c a s t of her that to body t h a t we .. . that Pike mannequin, use to her." "Alabama has l o n g r e c o g n i z e d that a wrongful i n t r u s i o n i n t o one's p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s c o n s t i t u t e s the tort of invasion of privacy. See I.C.U. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , I n c . v. J o n e s , 780 So. 2d [685] at 688 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ] ; J o h n s t o n v. F u l l e r , 706 So. 2d 700, 701 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; S m i t h v. D o s s, 251 A l a . 250, 37 So. 2d 118 ( 1 9 4 8 ) . '"This Court d e f i n e s the t o r t of i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y as t h e i n t e n t i o n a l w r o n g f u l i n t r u s i o n i n t o one's p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s i n such a manner as t o o u t r a g e o r c a u s e m e n t a l s u f f e r i n g , shame, o r h u m i l i a t i o n t o a person of ordinary s e n s i b i l i t i e s . " ' R o s e n v. Montgomery S u r g i c a l C t r . , 825 So. 2d 735, 737 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o t i n g C a r t e r v. I n n i s f r e e H o t e l , I n c . , 661 So. 2d 1174, 1178 (Ala. 1995)). " ' I t i s g e n e r a l l y accepted t h a t i n v a s i o n of privacy consists of four limited and d i s t i n c t wrongs: (1) i n t r u d i n g i n t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p h y s i c a l s o l i t u d e or s e c l u s i o n ; (2) g i v i n g p u b l i c i t y t o p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n about the p l a i n t i f f t h a t v i o l a t e s o r d i n a r y d e c e n c y ; (3) p u t t i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f i n a 16 he] When shop." a so Ebbole's [Ebbole, there just the e v e n went " r e a l l y wanted t o t a l k t o f r o n t and sitting shop set 2091121; 2100172 false, but not n e c e s s a r i l y defamatory, position i n the public e y e ; o r (4) appropriating some element of the p l a i n t i f f ' s p e r s o n a l i t y f o r a commercial u s e . N o r r i s v. M o s k i n S t o r e s , I n c . , 272 A l a . 174, 132 So. 2d 321 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . ' "Johnston, 706 So. 2d a t 7 0 1 . " B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 12 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . sought recovery under t h e t h i r d encompassed w i t h i n t h e t o r t the p l a i n t i f f and f o u r t h of invasion species o f wrong of privacy: putting i n a f a l s e l i g h t and a p p r o p r i a t i n g some e l e m e n t of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p e r s o n a l i t y f o r a commercial use. and Demented either a false-light of-privacy following argue obtained that Ebbole failed facts, invasion- they say, Ebbole d i d not prove the (1) t h a t A v e r e t t e a n d Demented N e e d l e h a d t h e b o d y c a s t f r o m t h e a r t i s t who made i t (2) t h a t t h e body c a s t was r e c o g n i z a b l e Ebbole. Averette to establish or a commercial-appropriation c l a i m because, facts: wrongfully and Needle Ebbole as a l i k e n e s s o f We a g r e e t h a t E b b o l e f a i l e d t o p r o v e e i t h e r o f t h o s e b u t we conclude that neither e s t a b l i s h her invasion-of-privacy With respect Needle p o i n t to the f i r s t out that, during fact essential to claim. fact, Averette the t r i a l 17 was of t h i s a n d Demented case, Ebbole 2091121; 2100172 had a lawsuit cast pending against t o determine the true and Demented resolved, wrongfully Needle maintain that, until t o determine the cast. Unlike illegal assertion of ownership; misuse of another's property; interference Hobbs BMW, with another's lawsuit whether was they had conversion, (3) an illegal use o r o r (4) a w r o n g f u l d e t e n t i o n property,'" Penttala v. 698 So. 2d 137, 139 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) or David (quoting 643 So. 2d 1347, 1349 1 9 9 4 ) ) , t h e t o r t o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y does n o t r e q u i r e proof of a assertion wrongful of appropriation for that a w r o n g f u l t a k i n g ; (2) Drennen L a n d & T i m b e r Co. v. P r i v e t t , (Ala. t h e body Averette the t o r t of h o w e v e r , w h i c h r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f "'(1) an who made ownership of the cast. i t was i m p o s s i b l e obtained the a r t i s t taking ownership. of of property It is o r o f an sufficient some e l e m e n t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a commercial use. to illegal show an personality B u t l e r v . Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d a t 12. With respect no one c o u l d t o t h e second f a c t , tell, j u s t by l o o k i n g was a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n also undisputed that a t t h e body c a s t , of Ebbole's torso. Averette told 18 i t was u n d i s p u t e d Nevertheless, that that i t i t was anyone who i n q u i r e d , a n d 2091121; 2100172 even volunteered inquired, the the information t h a t t h e mannequin was circumstances, Ebbole allow the those who had E b b o l e ' s body c a s t . presented invasion-of-privacy jury for a factual to claim sufficient t o be not Under evidence submitted to to the resolution. III. Malice The t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d , w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n , t h a t E b b o l e was a public figure and that, to p r e v a i l on her defamation c l a i m s , she h a d t o p r o v e by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e the defendants malice -- p u b l i s h e d statements that i s , with knowledge about that her the with U.S. 254, 279-80 See New (1964). Y o r k Times Co. Tanner argues actual statements f a l s e o r w i t h r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d as t o w h e t h e r t h e were t r u e o r f a l s e . that were statements v. S u l l i v a n , 376 that the evidence of a c t u a l m a l i c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment a g a i n s t h e r on t h e l i b e l count. The libel indicating count that, "My S p a c e " Web as a tattoo on against July 29, Tanner was based 2009, T a n n e r h a d on evidence p o s t e d on page s t a t e m e n t s t h a t q u e s t i o n e d E b b o l e ' s artist and body 19 piercer. her skill Specifically, in 2091121; 2100172 referring perform t o a v i d e o t h a t showed E b b o l e a " d e r m a l i m p l a n t " body p i e r c i n g , "You have t a k e n what I l o v e and allegedly. C u r r e n t mood: d i s g u s t e d Category: b l o g g i n g demonstrating how to Tanner s t a t e d : s h - t a l l o v e r i t ... " I came a c r o s s t h i s v i d e o d u r i n g my r e c e n t h e a l t h i n s p e c t i o n of a l l [ t h i n g s ] . I was c e r t i f i e d t o do microdermal anchoring i n October of 2008....[Ebbole's method] i s d i s r e s p e c t f u l t o what I do and what I love ... allegedly. I a s k you, people of the i n t e r w e b ... what s h o u l d I do a b o u t i t ? F Y I : [ E b b o l e ' s method] i s NOT t h e method I u s e o r w o u l d s u g g e s t t o be u s e d f o r any i m p l a n t p r o c e d u r e . " In response posted on Ebbole and t o Tanner's statements, Tanner's some "My very comments o f t h e l a t t e r S p a c e " Web critical of a number o f comments were page, some i n d e f e n s e Ebbole. type i n c l u d e d the Representative following: " F i r s t o f a l l , I'm n o t s u r p r i s e d by a n y t h i n g sh y that comes f r o m Chassity. I have p e r s o n a l l y w i t n e s s e d h e r o b l i t e r a t e a t a t t o o on a 1 7 - y e a r - o l d f o r whom she a l l o w e d t h e b o y f r i e n d t o s i g n t h e waiver. I s t h e r e no way t o g e t h e r l i c e n s e r e v o k e d ? "OMG. I w a t c h e d t h i s same v i d e o and was h o r r i f i e d by what [ E b b o l e ] was d o i n g . I m y s e l f w a n t [ e d ] a few o f t h e d e r m a l p i e r c i n g s , b u t when I saw t h i s I was t o t a l l y turned off!!! " [ E b b o l e i s ] a p i e c e o f s h - - . .. L e t p e o p l e go t o h e r and g e t h e r n a s t y - a s s HIV hands a l l o v e r them. "I'll be h a p p y t o k i l l [Ebbole]." 20 of 2091121; 2100172 On letter August 20, that stated, 2009, Ebbole's i n pertinent attorney sent Tanner a part: "You h a v e r e c e n t l y embedded v i d e o f o o t a g e o f Chassity [ E b b o l e ] on y o u r web page and posted s l a n d e r o u s comments w h i c h i n c l u d e d e r o g a t o r y comments a b o u t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l a b i l i t i e s as a p i e r c e r . These statements amount to slander per se. Your u n a u t h o r i z e d use o f t h i s v i d e o by e m b e d d i n g i t on your web page along with accompanying false, d e r o g a t o r y , and u n t r u e comments v i o l a t e A l a b a m a Code A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 6-5-186 e t s e q . "You s h o u l d be aware t h a t these p u b l i s h e d s t a t e m e n t s by you h a v e c a u s e d s u b s t a n t i a l damage t o t h e c h a r a c t e r and r e p u t a t i o n o f my c l i e n t . Demand i s h e r e b y made p u r s u a n t t o A l a b a m a Code S e c t i o n 6-5-186 t h a t you i m m e d i a t e l y remove t h e embedded v i d e o o f C h a s s i t y and t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g s l a n d e r o u s comments w i t h i n f i v e (5) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s f o r m a l n o t i c e t o you. " F u r t h e r demand i s made upon you t o make a p u b l i c r e t r a c t i o n o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s w i t h i n f i v e (5) d a y s i n a l l m e d i a and on a l l web s i t e s where t h e y have b e e n p u b l i s h e d by you. T h i s r e t r a c t i o n must a c k n o w l e d g e [ t h a t ] t h e s t a t e m e n t s p o s t e d on t h e web s i t e a r e f a l s e and be i n a f o r m s a t i s f a c t o r y t o my client." I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , a f t e r T a n n e r r e c e i v e d t h e demand l e t t e r from counsel, she d i d not issue a retraction d e l e t e any o f t h e comments p o s t e d on h e r Web and did not page. T a n n e r a r g u e s t h a t she m e r e l y e x p r e s s e d an o p i n i o n on h e r Web page -- that Ebbole had used 21 the wrong method for a 2091121; 2100172 "dermal implant" impossible body piercing. f o r an o p i n i o n t o be She "false" s t a t e m e n t made w i t h a c t u a l m a l i c e . superficially appealing, Tanner a u t h o r i t y i n support of i t . in support Ala. v. of R. App. her P., Devereaux, (stating that So. 2d A l t h o u g h t h a t argument i s directs this in violation "[t]his properly presented and 1222, court is so as t o c o n s t i t u t e a court B e c a u s e she p r e s e n t s argument, i t of to 1224 will Rule (Ala. Civ. address only f o r which supporting no no a u t h o r i t y 28(a)(10), we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e f u r t h e r . 686 that insists Asam App. 1996) those issues a u t h o r i t y has been cited"). The could trial be court was i n f e r r e d from apparently Tanner's of the view failure, demand l e t t e r f r o m E b b o l e ' s c o u n s e l , that malice after receiving to r e t r a c t her statements o r t o d e l e t e t h e t h i r d - p a r t y comments t h a t were p o s t e d on Web page. (Second) That of Torts circumstances view has some support. See § 580A cmt. d ("Under evidence was (not deciding to certain r e l e v a n t i n showing r e c k l e s s n e s s at the time the statement 286-87 failure Restatement be at a her r e t r a c t ] might p u b l i s h e d . " ) ; b u t c f . New [of (1977) a Y o r k Times Co. whether 22 failure v. S u l l i v a n , 376 to r e t r a c t may U.S. ever 2091121; 2100172 constitute adequate purposes). defamation jury,'" evidence Because cases the Delta Health 906 (Ala. 1987)), Group, (quoting Cousins v. malice for w i t h i n the I n c . v. T.G.& Y. S t o r e s Co., IV. guideposts malice province 887 514 of So. So. in the 2d 2d at 904, and b e c a u s e T a n n e r has p r e s e n t e d us w i t h r u l i n g as t o t h i s i s s u e , we not Needle, awards s e t o u t by will the trial no court's consider i t further. P u n i t i v e Damages Demented punitive-damages of Stafford, o r a u t h o r i t y upon w h i c h t o r e v e r s e Averette, constitutional "'determination is particularly 898 reason of are and Tanner excessive t h e Supreme C o u r t that the of the light of the U n i t e d BMW and t h e f a c t o r s r e c o g n i z e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a i n So. 2d Hammond v. C i t y o f Gadsden, 493 So. their Averette motion not v. Hornsby, 539 U.S. 2d 1374 did O i l Co. I n c . v. G o r e , 517 for a remittitur, specifically request a hearing 218 and ( A l a . 1986). In Demented remitted. and argued Averette that the submitted an 23 p u n i t i v e damages affidavit Needle p u n i t i v e damages. Instead, they submitted a f f i d a v i t s concerning t h e i r positions (1996), ( A l a . 1989), and on 559 States in Green of North America, in argue stating financial should be that his 2091121; 2100172 personal net w o r t h was Demented N e e d l e was $12, 247.23 and t h a t the "minus $28,745.28." Needle contended t h a t the trial net worth of I n a d d i t i o n , Demented c o u r t was required to remit t h e $200, 000 p u n i t i v e - d a m a g e s a w a r d a g a i n s t i t t o no more t h a n t h e $50,000 s t a t u t o r y cap on p u n i t i v e damages a s s e s s e d a small business, The trial pursuant court denied A v e r e t t e and on p u n i t i v e damages. or specifically trial court evidence, filed by requested i n support "either or both, t h e amount o f p u n i t i v e damages," p u r s u a n t § 6-11-23(b). 6-11-21(b). explanation. Tanner's b r i e f t h a t the receive additional § for a remittitur for a remittitur that motion requested hearing the motion Demented N e e d l e w i t h o u t Tanner's motion a hearing t o A l a . Code 1975, against of conduct a concerning t o A l a . Code 1975, That s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "(b) I n a l l c a s e s w h e r e i n a v e r d i c t f o r p u n i t i v e damages i s a w a r d e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l , upon m o t i o n o f any p a r t y , e i t h e r c o n d u c t h e a r i n g s or r e c e i v e a d d i t i o n a l evidence, or both, concerning the amount o f p u n i t i v e damages." (Emphasis added.) she had total T a n n e r s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t assets of $7,500, and total $10,900, f o r a n e t w o r t h o f "minus $3,400." 24 stating that liabilities The trial of court 2091121; 2100172 denied Tanner's motion f o r a r e m i t t i t u r w i t h o u t without explanation. The t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n f a i l i n g t o h o l d a hearing when none was r e q u e s t e d Waldrip (Ala. Wrecker Serv., b y A v e r e t t e a n d Demented N e e d l e . I n c . v. W a l l a c e , C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a n d t h e t r i a l discretion i n receiving additional a f f i d a v i t s concerning 11-23(b). Nevertheless, to trial See 758 So. 2d 1110, 1116 court d i d not exceed i t s evidence i n t h e form of t h e i s s u e o f p u n i t i v e damages. because Tanner r e q u e s t e d which i s r e q u i r e d under Rule the a h e a r i n g and See § 6- a hearing, 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; because court f a i l e d t o s t a t e i t s reasons f o r d e c i d i n g not i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t as t o p u n i t i v e damages; and b e c a u s e we a r e u n a b l e t o d i s c e r n t h e b a s i s upon w h i c h t h e trial court denied three defendants, the motions f o r a r e m i t t i t u r we remand t h e c a u s e w i t h f i l e d by a l l instructions for the t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g , a n d t o make f i n d i n g s o f fact conclusions and punitive-damages Control, see also Rivers, of l a w , on a w a r d s were the question excessive. I n c . v . B u s h , 851 So. 2d 548 Southeast Environmental 12 So. 3d 32, 48-50 Guaranty ( A l a . C i v . App. the Pest 2002); I n f r a s t r u c t u r e , L.L.C. ( A l a . 2008) 25 See whether ( o p i n i o n on v. original 2091121; 2100172 submission). within We direct the t r i a l court t o make a return 42 d a y s . 2091121 REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. 2100172 REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n , Thomas, a n d M o o r e , J J . , c o n c u r . 26

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.