Shirley Hines v. Trinity Contractors, Inc. (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-10-741)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/09/2013 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 of 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, 2013 2120295 S h i r l e y Hines v. Trinity C o n t r a c t o r s , Inc. 2120296 Scotty K e l l e y v. Trinity C o n t r a c t o r s , Inc. Appeals from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-741 and CV-10-901231) 2120295; 2120296 PITTMAN, In order Judge. appeal no. 2120295, of the Jefferson granting a motion Shirley Circuit Hines Court appeals from ("the t r i a l f o r a summary j u d g m e n t filed an court") by Trinity C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . ( " T r i n i t y " ) , a g a i n s t h e r i n c a s e no. CV-10741. I n a p p e a l no. 2120296, S c o t t y K e l l e y a p p e a l s f r o m same o r d e r t o t h e e x t e n t t h e t r i a l that court granted a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t f i l e d b y T r i n i t y a g a i n s t h i m i n c a s e no. CV-10-901231, w h i c h h a d b e e n c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h c a s e no. CV-107 4 1 . We r e v e r s e a n d remand. F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y B o t h o f t h e s e a p p e a l s stem f r o m c o m p l a i n t s a r i s i n g o u t o f an automobile following accident that facts are o c c u r r e d on June undisputed. a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7:00 a.m., On June 1, 2009. 1, 2009, The at H i n e s was t r a v e l i n g on I n t e r s t a t e 59, where two l a n e s i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n a r e s e p a r a t e d b y a m e d i a n . H i n e s was t r a v e l i n g m e d i a n when H i n e s northbound i n the l e f t lane next t o the l o s t c o n t r o l of her v e h i c l e , causing i t to go down i n t o t h e m e d i a n a n d b a c k up i n t o o n c o m i n g t r a f f i c i n a southbound lane. Upon e n t e r i n g t h e s o u t h b o u n d lane, Hines's v e h i c l e s t r u c k a b l a c k p i c k u p t r u c k t h a t was b e i n g d r i v e n b y 2 2120295; 2120296 Kelley, which was c a t a p u l t e d and then h i t by an 18-wheel t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r t r u c k t h a t was b e i n g d r i v e n b y M a r s h a l l K e l l y Cummings a n d was owned b y S o u t h e r n Hines H a u l e r s , LLC. f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. CV- 10-741, on M a r c h 9, 2010, a l l e g i n g t h a t a v e h i c l e , p r e v i o u s l y r e f e r r e d t o as a "phantom v e h i c l e , " t h a t b e l o n g e d had caused median. her vehicle Hines to travel o f f the road asserted claims of negligence to Trinity and i n t o t h e and wantonness a g a i n s t T r i n i t y and a number o f f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s , and she a s s e r t e d a c l a i m motorist coverage f o r uninsured- a g a i n s t Farmers Insurance whom H i n e s h a d a p o l i c y o f a u t o m o b i l e the a c c i d e n t . Hines's Farmers and T r i n i t y and underinsured- Exchange, with insurance a t the time of filed s e p a r a t e answers t o complaint. On A p r i l 13, 2010, S o u t h e r n Haulers filed a complaint a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness a g a i n s t H i n e s , Trinity, claims a n d a number o f f i c t i t i o u s l y of "negligence "negligent and/or and/or wantonness named d e f e n d a n t s wanton entrustment" respondeat superior common l a w a g e n c y a n d / o r v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y " fictitiously named defendants; 3 that and and and/or against certain complaint was assigned 2120295; 2120296 case no. CV-10-901231. Hines and Trinity answers t o Southern H a u l e r s ' c o m p l a i n t . filed a motion requesting that the filed separate T r i n i t y subsequently trial court consolidate c a s e no. CV-10-741 and c a s e no. CV-10-901231 f o r t h e of d i s c o v e r y and t r i a l ; the t r i a l purposes court granted that motion. S o u t h e r n H a u l e r s l a t e r amended i t s c o m p l a i n t t o add K e l l e y as a defendant. Kelley filed a number o f f i c t i t i o u s l y negligence Kelley's and named d e f e n d a n t s , a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s o f wantonness. Trinity filed an for 16, 2011, Hines f i l e d a summary judgment i n c a s e no. the 901231 answer as to a l l claims trial granting c o u r t e n t e r e d an Hines's order On asserted June i n case no. motion as summary-judgment Southern Haulers. Additionally, summary-judgment m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l had been asserted having to 4 the by Hines's court dismissed a l l claims a g a i n s t Hines complaint. granted 17, CV-10- c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e and w a n t o n n e s s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t h e r that to CV-10-901231 a a g a i n s t h e r by S o u t h e r n H a u l e r s i n t h a t a c t i o n . 2011, and cross-claim. On May motion a cross-claim against Trinity i n Southern Haulers' 2120295; 2120296 S o u t h e r n H a u l e r s and K e l l e y f i l e d a j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n f o r dismissal, agreeing to dismiss Southern Haulers' claims a g a i n s t K e l l e y ; the t r i a l court, pursuant to t h a t s t i p u l a t i o n , dismissed Southern H a u l e r s ' claims against K e l l e y . On January 26, 2012, K e l l e y and H i n e s f i l e d a j o i n t m o t i o n t o r e a l i g n t h e parties; the trial court granted that motion, K e l l e y and H i n e s as p l a i n t i f f s w i t h S o u t h e r n On A u g u s t 15, 2012, judgment court as to Trinity filed asserted a entered a l l claims on judgment realigning Haulers. a m o t i o n f o r a summary against November 6, i t . 2012, T r i n i t y ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on a l l c l a i m s against i t . The trial The trial granting asserted court stated, i n pertinent part, that "the totality of the evidence overwhelmingly i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e phantom v e h i c l e was n o t a T r i n i t y Contractors vehicle. The s u b s e q u e n t 'memory' o f S h i r l e y H i n e s w o u l d , a t most, c o n s t i t u t e o n l y a scintilla of evidence but cannot r e a s o n a b l y be deemed t o c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e f o r w h i c h t h i s case s h o u l d p r o c e e d t o t r i a l . " The trial court directed the entry of p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. filed timely notices of appeal to the a final judgment, B o t h H i n e s and K e l l e y supreme court; that c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d the appeals to t h i s c o u r t , pursuant to A l a . 5 2120295; 2120296 Code 1975, appeals, § 12-2-7(6), and this court consolidated the ex mero motu. Discussion On appeal, both Hines and K e l l e y argue that the trial c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n o f T r i n i t y because, t h e y say, fact as to belonged to there remained a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l whether the truck that ran Hines off the Trinity. "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence presented to the trial court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t . " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence" is " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w 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 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 to draw.' "Nationwide Architects, Prop. & P . C . ] , 792 Cas. Ins. So. 2d [369] 6 Co.[ v. DPF a t 372 [(Ala. road 2120295; 2120296 2000)] (citations omitted), quoted L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." Potter v. F i r s t Real Estate Co., 844 in American So. 2d 540, 545 ( A l a . 2002). Trinity attached judgment m o t i o n . a number o f e x h i b i t s t o i t s summary- One o f t h e e x h i b i t s was an a f f i d a v i t signed b y H i n e s on J u l y 21, 2009, i n w h i c h H i n e s s t a t e d t h a t she h a d been f o r c e d o f f the i n s i d e lane of Interstate m e d i a n , where she l o s t c o n t r o l o f h e r v e h i c l e . 59 i n t o the Hines stated i n t h e a f f i d a v i t : "The v e h i c l e t h a t f o r c e d me o f f t h e h i g h w a y was a r a t h e r l a r g e t r u c k , s i m i l a r t o t h e ones you see A l a b a m a Power use, which was white with blue w r i t i n g on the side. T h a t was a l l I was a b l e t o see p r i o r t o b e i n g f o r c e d o f f [ t h e road] by excerpts i t . " Trinity of the d e p o s i t i o n also attached of Chari the Dickson affidavit Fikes, who and had been d r i v i n g i n a v e h i c l e b e h i n d H i n e s ' s v e h i c l e a t t h e t i m e of the accident. that forced Hines Fikes s t a t e d i n her a f f i d a v i t that the truck out o f her lane and i n t o the median l a r g e r t h a n a p i c k u p t r u c k and was w h i t e w i t h b l u e the side. In her d e p o s i t i o n , Fikes testified letters that she was on was d r i v i n g i n a v e h i c l e f o l l o w i n g behind Hines's v e h i c l e , that a white t r u c k i n the r i g h t lane " g o t o v e r on [ H i n e s ] , " and t h a t 7 2120295; 2120296 H i n e s ' s v e h i c l e had s i d e of the t r u c k was s w e r v e d i n t o t h e m e d i a n and o n t o t h e interstate. white but t h a t she door of the t r u c k . o f t h e t r u c k and the truck. the had on the noticed blue l e t t e r s saw o n l y the l e f t a that short the driver haircut. of Fikes the written truck testified on was that a the swerved near Hines d i d not s t a y at the scene o f also attached Hines's deposition In her portions inches t a l l , navy-blue someone work she had s a i d , was s a l t and uniform i n the of the transcript c r o w d and t h a t , a f t e r the about f i v e f o o t t o f i v e - f o o t , pepper h a i r , with accident, a that nametag, she had and was was wearing speaking believed he d r i v e r o f t h e w h i t e t r u c k b e c a u s e o f t h e t h i n g s he was Hines testified in her deposition that she w r i t i n g on t h e t r u c k when i t s w e r v e d n e a r h e r "Trinity w h i t e and of t e s t i m o n y t o i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n . d e p o s i t i o n , Hines t e s t i f i e d a w h i t e m a l e , who, read side accident. Trinity two of s t a t e d t h a t she stated w h i t e male w i t h the She s t a t e d t h a t the m a j o r i t y t h a t she d i d n o t remember what was She t r u c k t h a t had She other Contractors." She t h a t t h e l e t t e r i n g "was 8 stated that could and the was a with the saying. see the t h a t i t had truck i n l i k e a round c i r c l e . was The 2120295; 2120296 b l u e was there that w r i t i n g was the and truck was there Hines also truck w i t h her was a continued to that the side she first time. and She things that stated Eugene C. t r u c k t h a t had also attached talking hatch. the mentioned that the her that contacted her children "could t r y to rehash of the roadway. transcript of T r i n i t y , t e s t i f i e d in his deposition trucks blue, "Contractors" blue overlaid and on of t o i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n . t h a t t h e l e t t e r i n g on royal one recalled that i t t h a t T r i n i t y ' s t r u c k s a r e w h i t e and is had s t a t e d t h a t i t was t h a t she had excerpts a that about f o r c e d her from the Jones's deposition Jones, the p r e s i d e n t She stated the had she so t h a t she happened." She stated that truck with d a u g h t e r when she weeks a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t Trinity of the been ask her a Trinity truck." had truck She d r i v e r ' s s i d e d o o r and a utility that remember what [had] o r two was on Trinity at the like testified attorney and of on were t o o l b o x e s accident "kind the word T r i n i t y C o n t r a c t o r s . " light the "T" with of T r i n i t y . the He "C" the in testified t h a t nine T r i n i t y t r u c k s would f a l l w i t h i n Hines's d e s c r i p t i o n o f the t r u c k t h a t ran her white with blue o f f the r o a d and l e t t e r i n g on t h e d o o r . 9 that a l l nine were Jones t e s t i f i e d t h a t , 2120295; on 2120296 the morning workers were office. of the accident, signed With the majority i n at a service regard of Trinity's meeting to job-site trucks, at Trinity's Jones stated that t h e y have s i g n - i n s h e e t s t h a t w o r k e r s s i g n i n d i c a t i n g t h e time they report to the s i t e s . trucks are not assigned that box and t h a t Trinity's accident, were the Jones two o f t h e t r u c k s one was b e i n g Michael Bearden. driven trucks stated are kept that, trucks on t h e d a y o f t h e t h a t matched H i n e s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n at the north p a v i l i o n at a t Birmingham by K e i t h ("UAB"); he Jones stated and t h e other He s t a t e d t h a t by that are assigned t h e w o r k e r s who d r i v e t o job s i t e s are allowed to t a k e t h e t r u c k s home a n d t o d r i v e t h e t r u c k s job site are n o t supposed t o use t h e t r u c k s from t h e i r homes. He t e s t i f i e d d i r e c t l y to the that those f o r personal s t a t e d t h a t t h e w o r k e r s have t h e o p t i o n t-shirt, i n the yard a t He s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e were no s i g n - i n s h e e t s t h e UAB j o b s i t e . utility t o a worker are kept i n a l o c k at Trinity's job site U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama that for the unassigned office. located He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e k e y s t o t h e workers use. Jones of wearing a T r i n i t y b u t , he s a i d , t h e t - s h i r t s do n o t have name t a g s on them. 10 2120295; 2120296 Trinity Service also attached the a f f i d a v i t Group O f f i c e Manger for Trinity. Aimee s t a t e d t h a t she was r e s p o n s i b l e e m p l o y e e s who a.m. t o 7:30 a.m., only Hines. stated from that, on 6:00 A c c o r d i n g t o Aimee, "are remotely 'phantom similar to the v e h i c l e ' " described She s t a t e d t h a t t h e words " T r i n i t y C o n t r a c t o r s " in blue l e t t e r i n g Trinity T r i n i t y owned 31 company v e h i c l e s vehicles of the subject affidavit, for dispatching Monday t h r o u g h F r i d a y . 9 of those description In her a r e a s s i g n e d company-owned v e h i c l e s on t h e d a t e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , and o f Aimee J o n e s , t h e appear on t h e s i d e o f t h o s e n i n e v e h i c l e s . the morning of the accident, by Aimee of the nine v e h i c l e s , s i x were p a r k e d a t t h e s i t e o f T r i n i t y ' s o f f i c e , were a t T r i n i t y ' s job s i t e a t UAB, job s i t e at Gardendale High School. and one was l o c a t e d two at a A c c o r d i n g t o Aimee, none o f t h e n i n e v e h i c l e s h a d been i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f I n t e r s t a t e 59 n e a r F a i r f i e l d a t any p o i n t a r o u n d t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t 7:15 a.m. at F i n a l l y , Aimee s t a t e d i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t , on t h e date of the accident, T r i n i t y d i d n o t have any e m p l o y e e whose a p p e a r a n c e w o u l d have been e v e n r e m o t e l y s i m i l a r t o t h e d r i v e r o f t h e v e h i c l e as d e s c r i b e d by H i n e s i n h e r 11 deposition. 2120295; 2120296 Trinity also submitted excerpts of the transcript of Cummings, who M a r s h a l l K e l l y Cummings's d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y . was traveling in the accident, testified but he that swerve. He that "there Hines had and that not he seen s t a t e d t h a t he had a lane phantom "saw and Kelley 1 filed the responses. signed her p r e v i o u s recall white the truck name o f that m e d i a n , a l t h o u g h she H i n e s s t a t e d t h a t she head but had t h a t she said. caused her had could stated see swerve and there." to T r i n i t y ' s summarya motion j o i n i n g i n with her response, s t a t e d t h a t , at the vehicle the the whole t h i n g happen" Along s e e n i t on of to company w r i t t e n c o u l d not Hines cause a f f i d a v i t i n J u l y 2009, she the had time her Southern Haulers f i l e d Kelley's the vehicle responses H i n e s f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t i n w h i c h she she at seen H i n e s ' s v e h i c l e w a s n ' t a phantom v e h i c l e judgment m o t i o n ; Hines's southbound the on the could side not of the travel into to day time the of the image and accident. writing in her i n i t i a l l y r e c a l l what t h e w r i t i n g in her affidavit that, after The p a r t i e s and t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e f e r t o a r e s p o n s e f i l e d by K e l l e y ; h o w e v e r , K e l l e y ' s r e s p o n s e t o T r i n i t y ' s summaryj u d g m e n t m o t i o n does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d i n e i t h e r a p p e a l no. 2120295 o r a p p e a l no. 2120296. 1 12 2120295; 2120296 discussing her the h e a d , she as " T r i n i t y accident had was affidavit writing on the to side and Inc., truck trial Hines the her her failure white truck the subsequent to at to recall the time she the i n J u l y 2009. Kelley argue on t e s t i m o n y d e s c r i b i n g the contradictory Trinity t e s t i m o n y and explain of Both Trinity, s i d e of the the only evidence l i n k i n g affidavit not f a m i l y and name on Hines's deposition s u b m i t t e d her is i t in summary-judgment m o t i o n , t h e Trinity's attempting deposition replaying r e c a l l e d the observed t h a t the accident her Contractors." In g r a n t i n g court with to her appeal t r u c k as previous that Hines's a Trinity affidavit truck testimony. on t h e o t h e r h a n d , a s s e r t s , c i t i n g McGough v. G & A, 999 So. 2d 898, A l a b a m a Power Co., 904 570 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 601, 604 i n which she v e h i c l e o f f the r o a d as that identified directly testimony t e s t i m o n y i n w h i c h she t h e t r u c k was a Trinity subsequent the truck contradicts her that earlier had and had b l u e w r i t i n g . 13 deposition ran her t r u c k , because, i t argues, s t a t e d t h a t a l l she large, white, v. ( A l a . 1990), t h a t Hines c a n n o t c r e a t e an i s s u e o f f a c t w i t h h e r testimony, 2 0 0 7 ) , and T i t t l e affidavit s e e n was that I n McGough, 2120295; 2120296 this court deposition earlier stated or affidavit deposition explanation." in Tittle, that 999 the or So. "[t]he court testimony affidavit 2d a t 904 Alabama that may not directly testimony contradicts without (emphasis added). Supreme Court consider determined adequate Likewise, that when s e e m i n g l y i n c o n s i s t e n t t e s t i m o n y has b e e n c l a r i f i e d o r r e a d i n context fact, the to reveal i t s consistency, admissible. 570 So. 2d a t 604-05. statement i n Hines's f i r s t that forced similar with [her] o f f the t o t h e ones you blue testimony writing i n her on later the l a t e r t e s t i m o n y i s , i n In the p r e s e n t case, affidavit h i g h w a y was that a rather see A l a b a m a Power u s e , the side" was deposition and "[t]he large truck, w h i c h was consistent her vehicle second white with affidavit. The statement i n Hines's f i r s t the s i d e o f a w h i t e t r u c k o f t h e t y p e A l a b a m a Power u s e s all [she] was by a f f i d a v i t that blue w r i t i n g a b l e t o see p r i o r to being side that of she the could white inconsistent with second a f f i d a v i t . her not r e a d what t h e truck said. t e s t i m o n y i n her blue "was That later expressly writing on the implication is deposition and However, i n b o t h H i n e s ' s l a t e r 14 on f o r c e d o f f [the road] [ t h e w h i t e t r u c k ] " i m p l i e s , a l t h o u g h i t does n o t state, the deposition 2120295; 2120296 testimony and her second affidavit, a l t h o u g h she d i d n o t r e c a l l she signed her f i r s t what t h e b l u e affidavit, explained that, w r i t i n g s a i d when after thinking further what she h a d s e e n when t h e a c c i d e n t picture she occurred, i n h e r m i n d what words were w r i t t e n about she was a b l e t o i n blue on t h e s i d e o f t h e w h i t e t r u c k a n d t h a t what was w r i t t e n i n b l u e "Trinity Contractors." discrepancy Thus, Hines clarified was the apparent between t h e statement i n h e r f i r s t a f f i d a v i t that b l u e w r i t i n g on t h e s i d e o f a w h i t e t r u c k o f t h e t y p e A l a b a m a Power uses "was a l l [ s h e ] was able t o see p r i o r to being f o r c e d o f f [ t h e road] by [the w h i t e t r u c k ] " and t h e t e s t i m o n y in her l a t e r deposition and h e r second a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t what was w r i t t e n i n b l u e w r i t i n g on t h e s i d e o f t h e w h i t e t r u c k was " T r i n i t y C o n t r a c t o r s . " apparent discrepancy, Hines's deposition we Because Hines c l a r i f i e d conclude that the testimony and h e r second a f f i d a v i t that in i n d i c a t i n g what was w r i t t e n on t h e s i d e o f t h e t r u c k t h a t c a u s e d h e r v e h i c l e t o s w e r v e i n t o t h e m e d i a n was " T r i n i t y C o n t r a c t o r s " evidence f o r the trial court Trinity's summary-judgment m o t i o n . 15 to consider was p r o p e r i n ruling See McGough, supra. on 2120295; 2120296 T r i n i t y c i t e s H a m i l t o n v. P l a n t a t i o n T r a n s p o r t , So. 2d 266 trial that ( A l a . 1991), i n support of i t s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the c o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d i t s summary-judgment Hamilton, motion. a d r i v e r t h a t h a d been r u n o f f t h e r o a d the truck plate I n c . , 583 with presented a that had caused the c o l l i s i o n white evidence background and i n d i c a t i n g that green In testified had a l i c e n s e print and t h e company whose also truck a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d t h e a c c i d e n t was t h e o n l y b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d on the r o a d on w h i c h t h e a c c i d e n t occurred. 583 So. 2d a t 266. The company, i n t u r n , p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t s t r u c k s h a d w h i t e and b l u e the only business accident had with l i c e n s e p l a t e s and t h a t i t was n o t access to Id. The occurred. the road Alabama a f f i r m e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e company's the lack material of fact. substantial evidence of a on which Supreme the Court f a v o r b a s e d on genuine issue of Id. We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Hamilton. In t h i s case, although T r i n i t y produced evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t s t r u c k s t h a t matched the d e s c r i p t i o n of the truck that Interstate ran Hines 59 on into the date the median and 16 time were n o t on or of the accident, near Hines 2120295; 2120296 p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y i n h e r d e p o s i t i o n and her second a f f i d a v i t indicating that the " T r i n i t y Contractors" was w r i t t e n i n b l u e on s i d e o f t h e t r u c k t h a t caused h e r v e h i c l e t o swerve into the median, which c o n s t i t u t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o prove that i t was a t r u c k owned b y T r i n i t y that had caused Hines t o swerve i n t o t h e median. l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o H i n e s a n d K e l l e y , as we a r e r e q u i r e d to that do, we conclude Viewing the evidence i n a a genuine issue of material fact e x i s t s as t o w h e t h e r a t r u c k owned b y T r i n i t y was r e s p o n s i b l e for the accident. judgments e n t e r e d and We, i n favor therefore, of T r i n i t y reverse the summary i n c a s e no. CV-10-741 i n c a s e no. CV-10-901231, a n d we remand t h e c a s e s t o t h e trial court f o r further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 21202 95 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 21202 96 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , and Donaldson, writings. 17 J . , dissent, without

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.