Deborah Holloway Weaver v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/14/2012 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 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110289 Deborah Holloway Weaver v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Appeal from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t (CV-10-900210) Court MOORE, J u d g e . D e b o r a h H o l l o w a y Weaver a p p e a l s by t h e C o l b e r t C i r c u i t C o u r t Pilgrim's Pride Corporation. from a judgment ("the t r i a l We r e v e r s e . court") entered i n favor of 2110289 Background Thomas Joseph Weaver ("Weaver") P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e on November 20, w o r k i n g as the location. On top J a n u a r y 27, Weaver October ("the 29, 2010, He the company's Weaver f e l l 160 Weaver's filed a Alabama Workers' Compensation A c t widow, complaint ("the for he was Tuscumbia f e e t from d i e d as a r e s u l t o f t h a t 2010, widow"), working By J a n u a r y 2010, f e e d - m i l l manager a t of a g r a i n s i l o . On 1995. began the fall. Deborah Holloway pursuant to the A c t " ) , A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , seeking death b e n e f i t s from P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e . Pilgrim's denied Pride t h i n g s , t h a t i t had fall Act and, thus, that terminated or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , by silo the and, Act. S e p t e m b e r 19 At issues his that (1) and had Weaver had not i n t e n t i o n a l l y jumped f r o m h i s r e s u l t i n g d e a t h was tried before the not trial covered court on 2011. t e n u s e v i d e n c e was w h e t h e r Weaver's f a l l employment w i t h was his t h a t , e v e n i f Weaver's employment December 12, ore other the c a s e was trial, among covered under therefore, The asserting, Weaver's employment b e f o r e that his accident not y e t been t e r m i n a t e d , the claim, presented arose during the P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e , i . e . , whether 2 on course the of Pilgrim's 2110289 Pride had terminated Weaver's a t o p t h e s i l o on J a n u a r y 27, had notified employment b u t f o l l o w i n g day, from the silo employment b e f o r e 2010, Weaver that i t would allow him or p r e s e n t a t i o n of evidence, as a m a t t e r o f l a w the learned to be on of conclusion Pilgrim's top of his resigning intentionally been t e r m i n a t e d t h a t h i s employment w o u l d be employed w i t h reason option terminate of the i n i t s f a v o r on t h e b a s i s t h a t , had l e a r n e d i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e be to the jumped widow's P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e moved f o r a j u d g m e n t o f w h e t h e r h i s employment had had intended the At climbed (2) w h e t h e r P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e (3) w h e t h e r Weaver had on t h a t day. he the regardless or whether terminated, f a l l i n g t h a t he w o u l d no Pride silo and, on thus, the day he had of his he Weaver longer had no death. P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e a l s o a r g u e d t h a t Weaver must have t a k e n some affirmative a c t i o n to climb top of the s i l o t o f a l l court entered off. over the On safety features December 14, 2011, on the a judgment, which s t a t e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y : " A f t e r c o n c l u s i o n of evidence f o r [ t h e widow], P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e made a M o t i o n f o r D i r e c t e d V e r d i c t o r Judgment as a M a t t e r o f Law. B a s e d on the evidence presented, the Court determined that [ P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e ] was e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h a t t h e r e were no g e n u i n e i s s u e s as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t s , and [ P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e ] had proven entitlement to summary judgment by 3 the trial 2110289 s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. I t i s t h e r e f o r e ORDERED a n d ADJUDGED a D i r e c t e d V e r d i c t i s h e r e b y g r a n t e d a n d t h a t judgment i s h e r e b y e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e [ w i d o w ] and i n f a v o r o f [ P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e ] on t h e c o m p l a i n t . " (Capitalization i n original.) The widow timely f i l e d her notice of appeal. Analysis The widow r a i s e s m u l t i p l e i s s u e s on a p p e a l . We f i n d h e r f i r s t i s s 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 f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-88 -- d i s p o s i t i v e . Section of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s judgments. with 25-5-88 r e q u i r e s court t o make f i n d i n g s of law i n workers' Alabama law r e q u i r e s § 25-5-88, conclusions a trial only compensation s u b s t a n t i a l compliance a n d meager o r o m i s s i v e findings of f a c t or o f l a w do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e a r e v e r s a l o f a w o r k e r s ' compensation judgment. See Ex p a r t e Curry, 607 So. 2d 230, 232 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; C a l v e r t v . F u n d e r b u r g , 284 A l a . 3 1 1 , 224 § So. 2d 664 (1969) 25-5-88). A trial (construing court, f a c t and s t a t e c o n c l u s i o n s issues presented at t r i a l . So. 3d 1125, 1129-30 the predecessor statute t o h o w e v e r , must make f i n d i n g s o f of law that are responsive Equipment Sales ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 4 t othe C o r p . v . Gwin, 4 2110289 "'The p u r p o s e o f A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-88, i s t o " e n s u r e s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s so t h a t t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t can d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e j u d g m e n t i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s . " ' F a r r i s v. S t . V i n c e n t ' s Hosp., 624 So. 2d 183, 185 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( q u o t i n g E l b e r t G r e e s o n H o s i e r y M i l l s , I n c . v. I v e y , 472 So. 2d 1049, 1052 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' [ T l h e t r i a l c o u r t has a d u t y t o make a f i n d i n g on e a c h issue presented and litigated before i t . In i n s t a n c e s where t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l s t o make a f i n d i n g r e s p o n s i v e t o the i s s u e p r e s e n t e d , the case must be r e v e r s e d . ' Thomas v. G o l d K i s t , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 864, 867 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; see a l s o H a r b i n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s S t e e l C o r p . , 356 So. 2d 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) ; and Dun & B r a d s t r e e t C o r p . v. J o n e s , 678 So. 2d 181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). In H a r b i n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s S t e e l C o r p . , t h i s court r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and remanded t h e c a s e b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t had f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s o r t o make f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e o f n o t i c e o f i n j u r y t o the employer, d e s p i t e the i s s u e b e i n g presented and litigated. In Harbin, this court stated: "'In the p r e s e n t case the q u e s t i o n of whether Harbin n o t i f i e d h i s employer of h i s i n j u r y was p l e a d e d , c o n t e s t e d and s u b m i t t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t f o r i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . D e s p i t e t h i s f a c t t h e r e was no f i n d i n g made on t h i s i s s u e i n the c o u r t ' s original judgment. N o n e t h e l e s s , Harbin maintains t h a t the absence of a f i n d i n g of n o t i c e of i n j u r y does n o t r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l s i n c e a number o f A l a b a m a c a s e s have h e l d t h a t when a f i n d i n g of the t r i a l c o u r t i s merely meager o r o m i s s i v e , t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may examine the e v i d e n c e i n o r d e r t o d e c i d e i f the trial court's judgment can be s u s t a i n e d . E.g., West P o i n t Mfg. Co. v. B e n n e t t , 263 A l a . 571, 83 So. 2d 303 So. / i c : . 7\n-,i-.-,«^-, , I ^ , J _ r (i1r 9 c5: 5 )\; A l a b a m a mT^ e , 4t-i l ^e TP- r ^o^ d Ju, c^t s^ C o r p . v. x 'n G r a n t h a m, 263 A l a . 179, 17 82 So. 2d 204 5 2110289 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . However, s u c h i s n o t t h e r u l e when, as h e r e , t h e r e was no f i n d i n g made on t h e issue i n question.' "356 So. 2d a t 181-82." E q u i p m e n t S a l e s C o r p . , 4 So. 3d a t 1129-30 The no trial court's findings of fact issues presented, (emphasis added). judgment i n t h e p r e s e n t or conclusions case of law r e l a t i v e contains to the i . e . , w h e t h e r Weaver's d e a t h a r o s e o u t o f o r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s employment, w h e t h e r P i l g r i m ' s P r i d e h a d terminated Weaver's employment a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h , or w h e t h e r Weaver's d e a t h was t h e r e s u l t o f h i s own i n t e n t i o n a l action. We t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l we remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, and c o u r t t o c o m p l y w i t h § 25-5¬ 88 b y m a k i n g s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d s t a t i n g of l a w as t o those issues. conclusions B a s e d on o u r r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e o t h e r i s s u e s t h e widow r a i s e s i n her appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 6 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

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.