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
