S & M, LLC, d/b/a Huntsville Cab Company v. Kevin Burchel, as personal representative of the estate of Roy William Burchel

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/8/12 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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, 2011-2012 2110242 S & M, LLC, d/b/a H u n t s v i l l e Cab Company v. Kevin B u r c h e l , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f Roy W i l l i a m Burchel Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-43) BRYAN, J u d g e . S & M, L L C , d/b/a H u n t s v i l l e Cab Company Cab"), appeals ("Huntsville from a judgment i n f a v o r o f K e v i n B u r c h e l , t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f Roy W i l l i a m ("the personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " ) . We a f f i r m . Burchel 2110242 On A p r i l 2 1 , 2008, a t a x i c a b owned b y H u n t s v i l l e Cab was damaged in a collision William Burchel ("Roy") with an automobile i n Decatur. The c o s t driven Cab replaced the damaged Roy to repair the t a x i c a b w o u l d have e x c e e d e d i t s f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e ; Huntsville by taxicab therefore, instead of repairing i t . Huntsville Cab s u e d Roy i n t h e Morgan D i s t r i c t seeking to recover damages taxicab but also pending i n the d i s t r i c t not only f o r t h e damage f o r l o s s of i t s use. While court, Court, Roy p a i d to the action i t s was H u n t s v i l l e Cab t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e t a x i c a b , w h i c h was $5,387.50, a n d t h e cost i n c u r r e d b y H u n t s v i l l e Cab i n m o d i f y i n g the replacement a u t o m o b i l e t o make i t s u i t a b l e f o r u s e as a t a x i c a b , totaled the $2,765.95. Roy d i e d w h i l e district substituted entered court, and a judgment i n favor which t h e a c t i o n was p e n d i n g i n the personal f o r Roy. F o l l o w i n g 1 a trial, representative the d i s t r i c t of the personal was court representative w i t h r e s p e c t t o H u n t s v i l l e Cab's c l a i m f o r damages f o r l o s s o f T h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y t o make t h e r e p l a c e m e n t a u t o m o b i l e s u i t a b l e f o r u s e as a t a x i c a b i n c l u d e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , i n s t a l l i n g a meter and a r a d i o i n i t , i n s t a l l i n g a l i g h t on i t s r o o f , p a i n t i n g i t , and i n s t a l l i n g l e t t e r i n g on it. 1 2 2110242 use of the taxicab. Huntsville a trial on de Cab appealed to the novo. F o l l o w i n g September 14, 2011, personal representative circuit a bench t r i a l , entered a the judgment in circuit favor for court, of the w i t h r e s p e c t t o H u n t s v i l l e Cab's c l a i m f o r damages f o r l o s s o f use the Morgan C i r c u i t C o u r t of the t a x i c a b . I n p e r t i n e n t c o u r t ' s judgment part, states: "A number o f m a t e r i a l f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e a r e u n d i s p u t e d . On A p r i l 1, 2008, [ H u n t s v i l l e C a b ' s ] taxi cab was struck i n the s i d e by a vehicle o p e r a t e d by t h e d e c e d e n t , Roy B u r c h e l . B u r c h e l i s l i a b l e f o r t h e damage c a u s e d t o t h e cab. I t was deemed t o be a t o t a l l o s s and was n o t r e p a i r e d by [Huntsville Cab]. [Roy] paid [Huntsville Cab] $8,153.45 f o r t h e l o s s o f i t s v e h i c l e p l u s t h e c o s t o f o u t f i t t i n g i t as a cab. The s o l e i s s u e f o r t h e C o u r t t o d e c i d e i s what l o s s - o f - u s e damages, i f any, [ H u n t s v i l l e Cab] i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r from the date of the wreck u n t i l i t o b t a i n e d a replacement v e h i c l e and o u t f i t t e d i t f o r s e r v i c e as a cab. "The Court's decision on [ H u n t s v i l l e Cab's] demand f o r l o s s - o f - u s e damages i s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e following r u l e of law: a party cannot recover damages f o r b o t h t h e t o t a l l o s s o f a v e h i c l e and t h e l o s s o f use o f t h a t same v e h i c l e . F u l l e r v. M a r t i n , [41 A l a . App. 160, 164] 125 So. 2d 4, 7 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; L a r y v. V a l i a n t I n s u r a n c e Co., 864 So. 2d 1105, 1110 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). Because [Roy] has paid [ H u n t s v i l l e Cab] t h e v a l u e o f t h e t o t a l e d cab w h i c h i t d i d n o t r e p a i r , [ H u n t s v i l l e Cab] as a m a t t e r o f law i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r l o s s - o f - u s e damages. " A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by t h e C o u r t t h a t a j u d g m e n t be, and h e r e b y i s , r e n d e r e d i n 3 2110242 f a v o r o f t h e [ p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ] and a g a i n s t [ H u n t s v i l l e Cab] on t h e r e m a i n i n g c l a i m f o r damages in this c a s e . The [personal representative] is d i s c h a r g e d f r o m any f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n o r l i a b i l i t y to [ H u n t s v i l l e Cab]." Huntsville Cab timely appealed to the supreme court, w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 12-27 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code Huntsville determining 1975. Cab that argues i t was that the c i r c u i t not e n t i t l e d court to recover erred in damages f o r l o s s o f use o f t h e t a x i c a b because i t had been compensated f o r the t o t a l l o s s o f the t a x i c a b . Because the m a t e r i a l f a c t s are undisputed, the issue before us involves only the c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s . our r e v i e w i s de n o v o . See S t a t e Motley, 909 So. 2d 806, 810 only circuit Therefore, Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. ( A l a . 2005) before us i n v o l v e facts, ("Because t h e i s s u e s o u r r e v i e w i s de n o v o . " ) . I n Hunt v. Ward, supreme court automobile the a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o u n d i s p u t e d 262 A l a . 379, 79 So. 2d 20 addressed damaged the measure in a collision. of (1955), t h e damages In p e r t i n e n t for part, supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "The p r i m a r y r u l e i s g e n e r a l l y s t a t e d t o be t h a t t h e damage i s e m b r a c e d i n t h e f o r m u l a t h a t i t i s t h e 4 an the 2110242 d i f f e r e n c e i n the value of the [automobile] before and a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , c a u s e d by t h e a c c i d e n t . I f i t i s so damaged as n o t t o be r e p a i r a b l e and has no v a l u e a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , i t w o u l d be s i m p l y i t s value at the time of the a c c i d e n t ( l e s s i t s junk v a l u e , i f a n y ) . On t h i s amount i n t e r e s t s h o u l d be a l l o w e d . I f i t i s r e p a i r a b l e and t h e owner s e e s f i t t o r e p a i r i t and w h i l e d o i n g so he i s d e p r i v e d o f i t s use and i n c u r s o t h e r e x p e n s e i n t h a t c o n n e c t i o n , he may have t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t o f t h e p a r t s and l a b o r i n making the repairs together with the reasonable cost of t r a n s p o r t i n g i t and other i n c i d e n t a l c o s t , i f any, and t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f i t s use o r h i r e d u r i n g t h a t t i m e , on t h e t h e o r y t h a t he c o u l d have h i r e d one f o r use d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d : a l s o i n t e r e s t on t h e t o t a l as i n d i c a t e d a b o v e . " 262 A l a . a t 384-85, 79 So. 2d a t 25-26 C i t i n g Hunt v. Ward, among o t h e r (emphasis added). authorities, of appeals s t a t e d i n F u l l e r v. M a r t i n , 41 A l a . App. 125 4, So. 2d 7 ( A l a . C t . App. the court 160, 164, 1960): "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t i f t h e a u t o m o b i l e i s i n j u r e d so t h a t i t c a n n o t be r e p a i r e d t h e measure o f damages is i t s value immediately before the a c c i d e n t , l e s s i t s w r e c k a g e v a l u e , i f any. R e c o v e r y c a n n o t be had f o r b o t h t o t a l l o s s o f an a u t o m o b i l e and l o s s o f use o f t h e same v e h i c l e . " (Emphasis added.) L i k e w i s e , i n L a r y v. V a l i a n t I n s u r a n c e 864 So. stated: 2d 1105, "Our 1110 (Ala. Civ. supreme court has App. Co., 2002), this court previously held that ' [ r ] e c o v e r y c a n n o t be had f o r b o t h t o t a l l o s s o f an a u t o m o b i l e and l o s s o f use of the same v e h i c l e . ' F u l l e r 5 v. Martin, 41 2110242 Ala. App. 160, 164, 125 So. 2d 4, 7 Ward, 262 A l a . 379, 79 So. 2d 20 (1960) (citing (1955))." D e s p i t e t h e r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e f o r e g o i n g that damages damaged automobile compensated Wilson o f u s e may is a for i t stotal & Co. v . S i m s , indicates use f o r loss n o t be total loss, Hunt v . loss recovered and Huntsville authorities the i f the owner Cab a r g u e s 250 A l a . 414, 34 So. 2d 689 is that (1948), t h a t i n " c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s " damages f o r l o s s o f o f a damaged c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e may be r e c o v e r e d despite i t s b e i n g a t o t a l l o s s a n d t h e owner's h a v i n g b e e n c o m p e n s a t e d for i t stotal vehicle an In Wilson & Co. v . S i m s , a commercial owned b y Ramona Sims was damaged i n a c o l l i s i o n vehicle resulted owned by W i l s o n i n Sims's v e h i c l e repaired. lease loss. Sims s u e d W i l s o n , i n d i c a t i n g that & Co., I n c . ("Wilson"), being out of service and, d u r i n g her vehicle trial, was l e a s e d had l o s t as a r e s u l t o f h e r v e h i c l e for repairs. Sims d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e which w h i l e i t was introduced a t o Deaton Truck L i n e s when i t was damaged and i n d i c a t i n g t h e amount o f she with rent being out of s e r v i c e any e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o p r o v e t h e m a r k e t r e n t a l v a l u e o f h e r v e h i c l e w h i l e i t was o u t of s e r v i c e f o r r e p a i r s . M o r e o v e r , t h e j u r y was n o t i n s t r u c t e d 6 2110242 r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e measure o f damages. The jury returned a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f S i m s , and W i l s o n a p p e a l e d . R e v e r s i n g judgment pertinent in favor of Sims, the supreme court stated, part: "The r u l e i n A l a b a m a f o r t h e measure o f damages for the i n j u r y to a commercial v e h i c l e is the damages w h i c h w o u l d r e m u n e r a t e t h e p l a i n t i f f for necessary repairs i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y restoring the v e h i c l e t o i t s f o r m e r c o n d i t i o n and t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f i t s use o r h i r e d u r i n g t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o make s u c h r e p a i r s and f i t i t f o r b u s i n e s s . S o u t h e r n Ry. Co. v. R e e d e r , 152 A l a . 227, 236, 44 So. 699, 126 Am.St.Rep. 23 [ ( 1 9 0 7 ) ] ; P l y l a r v. J o n e s , 207 Ala. 372, 92 So. 445 [ ( 1 9 2 2 ) ] . T h i s seems t o be t h e r u l e in most o f the jurisdictions. 4 A.L.R. 1352, A n n o t a t i o n a; 1355 b; 78 A.L.R. 911, A n n o t a t i o n a, 912 b. "The j u r y was g i v e n no i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o t h e c o r r e c t measure o f damages i n t h e c a s e , n o r was t h e r e any e v i d e n c e o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f t h e use or h i r e of the d i s a b l e d v e h i c l e d u r i n g the p e r i o d i t was o u t o f s e r v i c e f o r n e c e s s a r y r e p a i r s . The j u r y was a l l o w e d t o s p e c u l a t e as t o t h i s e l e m e n t o f damages and t o p r o c e e d on t h e w r o n g t h e o r y i n a w a r d i n g a r e c o v e r y and t h e p r e d i c a t e f o r e r r o r l a i d i n t h i s r e g a r d by o b j e c t i o n t o c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e and i n m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l n e c e s s i t a t e s a r e v e r s a l o f the judgment. "The w r i t t e n l e a s e ( n o t e d by t h e r e p o r t e r ) of the [ v e h i c l e ] to Deaton Truck L i n e s a f f o r d e d no b a s i s on w h i c h t o r e s t s u c h an award, s i n c e t h e r e was no p r o o f t h a t t h e l e a s e was commensurate w i t h the market or r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l v a l u e of the v e h i c l e and i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n d i d n o t s u f f i c e as p r o o f t o s a t i s f y t h e r u l e as t o t h e measure o f t h i s e l e m e n t of damages nor to relieve them from being 7 the in 2110242 speculative. "[Sims] sought to r e s t r e c o v e r y f o r the l o s s of use o f t h e [ v e h i c l e ] on p r o o f o f l o s s o f p r o f i t s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i t was l a i d up f o r r e p a i r s , b u t t h i s i s n o t p e r m i s s i b l e i n t h i s k i n d o f a c a s e . The w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y does n o t s u p p o r t s u c h a t h e o r y n o r have our own c o u r t s s a n c t i o n e d i t . The f o l l o w i n g t e x t i n A m e r i c a n J u r i s p r u d e n c e , V o l . 5, p. 908, § 751, s t a t e s what we c o n c e i v e t o be t h e pertinent r u l e : ' W h i l e t h e l o s s o f p r o s p e c t i v e p r o f i t s may, in c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , be c o n s i d e r e d as an e l e m e n t o f damages f o r i n j u r y t o a c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e , t h e w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y i s t o t h e c o n t r a r y . I n no e v e n t , h o w e v e r , may one r e c o v e r f o r l o s s o f p r o f i t s t h a t are p u r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e or p r o b l e m a t i c a l . ' "The ' c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' mentioned i n the q u o t e d t e x t -- and n o t h e r e p e r t i n e n t u n d e r t h e p l e a d i n g and p r o o f i f s u c h e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e were t o be a p p r o v e d -- g e n e r a l l y a p p e a r s t o r e f e r t o t h o s e c a s e s where an a w a r d o f l o s s o f p r o f i t s i s a l l o w e d when no s u b s t i t u t e m o t o r v e h i c l e can be o b t a i n e d i n the market w h i l e p l a i n t i f f ' s v e h i c l e i s b e i n g r e p a i r e d . 4 A.L.R. 1361 c, and c a s e s ; 42 C . J . 1294, § 1171, and c a s e s n. 52, 53, p. 1298, § 1179, n. 32." 250 Ala. a t 415-16, 34 H u n t s v i l l e Cab So. 2d at argues that 690-91 the (emphasis added). c a s e now b e f o r e us falls w i t h i n the " c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s " r e f e r r e d to i n W i l s o n & v. Sims and that, therefore, damages f o r l o s s o f use of i t was i t s taxicab entitled while to recover i t located m o d i f i e d a r e p l a c e m e n t a u t o m o b i l e . However, i n W i l s o n & Co. Sims the damaged vehicle was 8 repairable and was Co. and v. indeed 2110242 repaired. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , H u n t s v i l l e Cab's taxicab Wilson & Co. was v. not Sims repairable -- i t was i s consistent with a total Hunt v. loss. Ward i n indicating that i f t h e damaged a u t o m o b i l e " i s r e p a i r a b l e the f i t owner deprived of sees to repair i t and w h i l e o f i t s u s e ... he may have i t s use o r h i r e d u r i n g that so he i s ... t h e r e a s o n a b l e time, c o u l d have h i r e d one f o r u s e d u r i n g doing and value on t h e t h e o r y t h a t that period he " 262 A l a . a t 385, 79 So. 2d a t 26. However, b e c a u s e t h e damaged v e h i c l e i n W i l s o n & Co. v. Sims was to have i t repaired, repairable i t does and t h e owner not purport elected to state a rule a p p l i c a b l e when t h e damaged a u t o m o b i l e i s a t o t a l l o s s and t h e owner has damaged been compensated automobile for i t s total i s a total compensated f o r i t s t o t a l loss loss. and t h e owner When the has been l o s s , the r u l e i n Alabama i s t h a t t h e owner may n o t r e c o v e r damages f o r l o s s o f u s e . See Hunt v. Ward, L a r y v. V a l i a n t I n s . Co., and F u l l e r v. M a r t i n . Thus, H u n t s v i l l e Cab's argument b a s e d on W i l s o n & Co. v. Sims has no merit. H u n t s v i l l e Cab a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h i s court s h o u l d change t h e r u l e i n A l a b a m a t h a t , i f t h e damaged a u t o m o b i l e i s a t o t a l 9 2110242 loss the and t h e owner has b e e n c o m p e n s a t e d f o r i t s t o t a l owner may not recover H u n t s v i l l e Cab s a y s , being made damages; and whole, for loss o f use because, (1) t h e r u l e p r e v e n t s H u n t s v i l l e Cab f r o m which of compensatory (2) e c o n o m i c f a c t o r s h a v e c h a n g e d s i n c e Hunt v. Ward F u l l e r v. M a r t i n allow damages loss, i s the purpose were d e c i d e d ; (3) o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h e owner o f a damaged a u t o m o b i l e t h a t i s a total loss t o r e c o v e r damages f o r l o s s o f u s e ; a n d (4) i t i s i l l o g i c a l t o allow t h e owner o f a damaged a u t o m o b i l e t h a t i s r e p a i r a b l e to r e c o v e r damages f o r l o s s o f u s e w h i l e d e n y i n g s u c h a r e c o v e r y to t h e owner o f a damaged automobile that However, t h e supreme c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d Hunt v. Ward, precedent. and this court i s a total loss. the e x i s t i n g rule i n i s bound See § 12-3-16, A l a . Code 1975 by supreme decisions of the Supreme C o u r t s h a l l g o v e r n t h e h o l d i n g s and d e c i s i o n s of the courts of appeals " ) . Therefore, ("The court we must apply the existing rule i n the present case. Because H u n t s v i l l e taxicab was a and compensated recover loss f o r the t o t a l court properly to total loss Huntsville Cab of the taxicab, Cab's had the been circuit d e t e r m i n e d t h a t H u n t s v i l l e Cab was n o t e n t i t l e d damages for loss 10 of use of the taxicab. 2110242 Accordingly, we a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n , Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P.J., concurs specially. 11 court. 2110242 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , Because this court concurring i s bound specially. by d e c i s i o n i n Hunt v. Ward, 262 A l a . 379, I concur fully i n d i c a t e my of-use i n the main opinion. our supreme 79 So. 2d 20 I write court's (1955), specially d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e h o l d i n g i n Hunt t h a t damages are limited to damaged but to loss- repairable c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e s and n o t a v a i l a b l e i n t h e c a s e o f a damaged c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e t h a t c a n n o t be r e p a i r e d . I agree, i n s t e a d , w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Oklahoma, w h i c h , as t o t h i s issue, has w r i t t e n : " ' [ T ] h i s C o u r t f a i l s t o see any l o g i c a l o r p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n f o r a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n r e p a i r a b l e and u n r e p a i r a b l e damage t o a c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e w h i c h w o u l d j u s t i f y l o s s o f u s e f o r t h e f o r m e r and n o t f o r the latter even though t h e owner s u f f e r s l o s s b e c a u s e he c a n n o t i m m e d i a t e l y r e p l a c e t h e v e h i c l e . I n b o t h i n s t a n c e s t h e owner has l o s t t h e same t h i n g , t h e u s e o f h i s v e h i c l e , and he s h o u l d be a b l e t o r e c o v e r t h i s l o s s o f use i n e i t h e r c a s e . ' " DTS Tank S e r v . , I n c . v. V a n d e r v e e n , 1984) Cir. 683 P.2d 1345, 1347 ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. F o r d M o t o r Co., 1973)). 259-61 See (Iowa 1 9 8 2 ) . a l s o Long (Okla. 471 F.2d 733, 736 v. M c A l l i s t e r , 319 I u r g e o u r supreme c o u r t i t s h o l d i n g i n Hunt and t o a d o p t what, i n my to N.W.2d (3d 256, reconsider o p i n i o n , i s the more r a t i o n a l a p p r o a c h t o f u l l y c o m p e n s a t i n g an i n j u r e d p a r t y 12 2110242 f o r t h e t o t a l l o s s o f i t s c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e by a l l o w i n g that injured party that vehicle t o r e c o v e r damages f o r t h e l o s s o f u s e o f d u r i n g the time i t seeks a replacement 13 vehicle.

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.