Mildred McDonald v. Springhill Medical Complex, Inc. et al. (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-11-237). Affirmed. No Opinion.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel.:5/31/2013 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111625 M i l d r e d McDonald v. Springhill M e d i c a l Complex, Inc., e t a l . Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-11-237) MAIN, Court Justice. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. Moore, C . J . , a n d S t u a r t , Wise, J J . , concur. Bolin, Parker, Murdock, and Shaw a n d B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n p a r t . 1111625 SHAW, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . M i l d r e d M c D o n a l d t r i p p e d and f e l l on t h e s i d e w a l k on t h e premises sued of Alabama O r t h o p a e d i c various entities that Clinic, P.C. allegedly ("AOC"). owned, She leased, m a i n t a i n e d , o r o p e r a t e d t h e f a c i l i t i e s and p r o p e r t y where t h e s i d e w a l k was located damages negligence for ( h e r e i n a f t e r "the d e f e n d a n t s " ) , s e e k i n g and wantonness. The e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s , trial and appeals. " ' " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 (Ala. 2003) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f review as the trial court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i s 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 . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , Ala. R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d of A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2004) . I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 ( A l a . 1986) . Once t h e movant makes a prima facie showing that t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . B a s s v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 53 8 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 2 court McDonald 1111625 1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s 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 judgment 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 . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " ' " P r i n c e v. P o o l e , 935 So. 2d 431, 442 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g Dow v. A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y , 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . " Brown v. W.P. Media, I n c . , 17 So. 3d 1167, 1169 ( A l a . 2009) . I concur w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s no-opinion affirmance trial court's claim. As negligent, summary j u d g m e n t to the claim I believe a as t o M c D o n a l d ' s a l l e g i n g that that McDonald genuine issue evidence creating precluded a summary j u d g m e n t on t h a t wantonness the defendants presented of of the were substantial material fact that claim. M c D o n a l d a l l e g e s t h a t she t r i p p e d on a j o i n t b e t w e e n t h e sidewalk ramp was and a h a n d i c a p - a c c e s s ramp and f e l l . installed i n 2005 i n the e x i s t i n g Apparently, the sidewalk. She t e s t i f i e d i n h e r d e p o s i t i o n t h a t h e r f o o t h i t s o m e t h i n g on t h e sidewalk sidewalk i n the approximate and the ramp, area causing of the j o i n t her to between trip M c D o n a l d ' s g r a n d s o n , who was p r e s e n t when she f e l l , and the fall. testified t h a t t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e i n e l e v a t i o n a t t h e j o i n t b e t w e e n 3 1111625 the o l d sidewalk presented and the added ramp. a f f i d a v i t testimony a l i c e n s e d a r c h i t e c t , who s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was where t h e off sidewalk and i n s t e a d of a s l o p e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , McDonald f r o m an e x p e r t , H a r v e y G a n d l e r , had e x a m i n e d t h e j o i n t and who a d i f f e r e n c e i n e l e v a t i o n at the the is t h a t i t was 1 G a n d l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s change i n the a "toe-catcher" t h a t was Disabilities "not something t h a t o b v i o u s o r n o t i c e a b l e t o an a v e r a g e p e r s o n w a l k i n g sidewalk"; AOC t h a t i t c o u l d n o t be s e e n by someone w a l k i n g b u i l d i n g and was not "observable" f r o m t h e b u i l d i n g i f t h e y were n o t to elevation was joint; the change not so high t h a t t h e f a c t i t was a t an o r t h o p e d i c w o u l d be in elevation; as to to those on walking cast no m a r k i n g t o that a the shadow change across by p e o p l e w i t h m o b i l i t y p r o b l e m s , who more a t r i s k o f t r i p p i n g o v e r a change i n e l e v a t i o n ; and 1 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et not call in the l o c a t e d a t a h a n d i c a p - a c c e s s ramp c l i n i c i n c r e a s e d the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t the frequented the toward l o o k i n g f o r i t o r were l o o k i n g t o w a r d t h e g r o u n d ; t h a t t h e r e was attention point ramp j o i n e d , r e s u l t i n g i n a d r o p ¬ e l e v a t i o n d i d not comply w i t h the Americans w i t h Act; also seq. 4 area are that 1111625 it was his professional opinion d e f e c t i v e and d a n g e r o u s t o AOC that the patients like sidewalk McDonald. I b e l i e v e t h a t , when v i e w e d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e McDonald, existence the of f a c t u a l were n e g l i g e n t t h a t was record includes questions evidence indicating to the as t o w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s and as t o w h e t h e r t h e j o i n t n o t open and o b v i o u s . from the n o - o p i n i o n a f f i r m a n c e McDonald's n e g l i g e n c e was created I thus r e s p e c t f u l l y a danger dissent o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t as t o claim. Bryan, J . , concurs. 5
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.
