Robert A. Mandella, Sr., and Sharon Mandella v. Eric Pennington
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 6/17/11 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 be 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, 2010-2011 2100131 Robert A. Mandella, S r . , and Sharon Mandella v. E r i c Pennington Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t (CV-09-900387) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d trial court defendant respect erred below, by t h i s i n holding was entitled t o t h e wantonness that to a appeal Eric i s whether t h e Pennington, summary judgment the with c l a i m o f R o b e r t A. M a n d e l l a , S r . 2100131 ("Robert"), and Sharon Mandella ("Sharon"), b e l o w . F o r t h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , we trial court d i d not e r r i n e n t e r i n g f a v o r o f P e n n i n g t o n on t h e w a n t o n n e s s we a f f i r m the judgment of the t r i a l Standard of a the plaintiffs conclude t h a t the summary j u d g m e n t c l a i m , and, in therefore, court. Review "We r e v i e w a summary judgment 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 p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l 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 judgment 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 t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" 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 f a i r - m i n d e d 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 . " In r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w the 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 the 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 Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [(Ala. 2001)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. First Real Estate Co., 2 844 So. 2d 540, 545 ( A l a . 2100131 2002). Undisputed Facts On September workers along 14, a t a Domino's the 2009, Robert Pizza and franchise n o r t h e r n r i g h t - o f - w a y of Pennington ("Domino's") Highway 84 multiple westbound lanes and s e p a r a t e d by a c o n c r e t e m e d i a n . On multiple R o b e r t and P e n n i n g t o n r e c e i v e d p a y c h e c k s the R e g i o n s Bank b r a n c h ("Regions") Dothan. consists eastbound S e p t e m b e r 14, co- located in H i g h w a y 84, w h i c h i s a l s o known as E a s t M a i n S t r e e t , of were lanes 2009, b o t h and w a n t e d t o go t o l o c a t e d along the southern r i g h t - o f - w a y o f H i g h w a y 84 a c r o s s f r o m Domino's i n o r d e r t o do t h e i r banking. Robert accepted Pennington's o f f e r of a r i d e to R e g i o n s and g o t i n t o t h e f r o n t p a s s e n g e r s e a t o f P e n n i n g t o n ' s automobile. the Pennington got i n t o a u t o m o b i l e . P e n n i n g t o n was the d r i v e r ' s familiar with s e a t and drove the p o r t i o n of H i g h w a y 84 s e p a r a t i n g Domino's f r o m R e g i o n s . A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s no traffic light located Regions, t h e r e i s a paved directly gap between i n the c o n c r e t e median The p a v e d gap i n t h e m e d i a n a l l o w s t r a f f i c from the westbound lanes Domino's to the 3 and there. t o c r o s s the median eastbound lanes and vice 2100131 versa. In Regions, the to Pennington paved eastbound of order gap in travel from planned the Domino's waited lanes Pennington's p a v e d gap was to concrete median and then cross the l a n e s . P e n n i n g t o n d r o v e h i s a u t o m o b i l e t o t h e edge and westbound lot t o c r o s s the westbound l a n e s to Domino's p a r k i n g l o t , s t o p p e d there, parking for several before automobile at the stop automobiles proceeding to to cross c r o s s e d the westbound sign located pass in Highway 84. lanes the i n the c o n c r e t e median w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . c r o s s i n g the eastbound automobile was struck t r u c k and R o b e r t was l a n e s o f H i g h w a y 84, b r o a d s i d e on the to While i t Pennington's the passenger side by a injured. Disputed Facts Pennington t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r c r o s s i n g the westbound l a n e s , he s t o p p e d i n t h e p a v e d gap i n t h e c o n c r e t e m e d i a n b u t his shoe, t h a t day, w h i c h was from the r a i n t h a t had b e e n falling s l i p p e d o f f o f t h e b r a k e p e d a l , and h i s a u t o m o b i l e rolled into before he the was middle able further t e s t i f i e d roof wet to of the apply northernmost the brake eastbound again and lane stop. He t h a t , except f o r the p i l l a r c o n n e c t i n g the of h i s automobile t o i t s hood, he 4 had an unobstructed 2100131 view of except oncoming traffic f o r some t r a f f i c away, he d i d not see l a n e s . He testified i n the eastbound lanes located approximately any oncoming t r a f f i c t h a t he t h o u g h t and 400 o r 500 i n the 400 o r 500 t h a t he w o u l d have enough f e e t away r e a c h e d him and t h a t he to c r o s s the eastbound lanes but a t r u c k s t r u c k h i s when h i s a u t o m o b i l e was Robert stopped testified i t struck his proceeded automobile t h a t he had i n the i n w h i c h he testified 1 Pennington as follows: e a s t on -NVs-Nyv>-N "2. I was i n t h e l e f t l a n e o f t h e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s o f E a s t M a i n S t r e e t . I saw a T o y o t a Camry a t t e m p t i n g t o c r o s s f o u r l a n e s o f t r a f f i c . The Camry had t o c r o s s t h e w e s t b o u n d l a n e s , t h e m e d i a n , and t h e n t h e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s . "3. The T o y o t a Camry f a i l e d t o s t o p i n t h e m e d i a n e v e n t h o u g h I was v e r y c l o s e t o t h e m e d i a n , I narrowly missed colliding into the Toyota Camry. "4. W h i l e I n a r r o w l y m i s s e d t h e T o y o t a Camry, t h e T o y o t a Camry was i n v o l v e d i n [ a ] c o l l i s i o n w i t h 5 not concrete median. C h r i s Beck traveling "1. the automobile. t h a t he d i d n o t know w h e t h e r i n t h e p a v e d gap s i g n e d an a f f i d a v i t traffic i n the t h i r d eastbound lane from p a v e d gap i n t h e c o n c r e t e m e d i a n . He t e s t i f i e d seen t h a t t r u c k b e f o r e feet eastbound time t o c r o s s the eastbound l a n e s b e f o r e the oncoming he saw that, 2100131 a c o m m e r c i a l s i z e d t r u c k t h a t was l a n e j u s t b e s i d e me. i n the right "5. T h e r e were no o b s t r u c t i o n s t h a t w o u l d have b l o c k e d the view of the d r i v e r of the Toyota Camry. "6. The d r i v e r o f t h e T o y o t a Camry d i d n o t s t o p i n the median or y i e l d t o the oncoming t r a f f i c even t h o u g h I and t h e t r u c k b e s i d e me were v e r y c l o s e t o t h e m e d i a n when t h e T o y o t a a t t e m p t e d t o c r o s s . I t a p p e a r e d t o me t h a t he was t r y i n g t o r a c e a c r o s s f o u r l a n e s i n an a t t e m p t t o b e a t the oncoming t r a f f i c . " Procedural Robert claims and his wife, of negligence summary j u d g m e n t , History Sharon, sued and w a n t o n n e s s . P e n n i n g t o n moved f o r a a s s e r t i n g t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o the n e g l i g e n c e Guest he Passenger S t a t u t e , was 1 entitled Section Pennington, s t a t i n g to a 32-1-2 c l a i m by v i r t u e o f t h e § 32-1-2, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , summary j u d g m e n t with 1 respect and to provides: "The owner, o p e r a t o r , o r p e r s o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e s h a l l n o t be l i a b l e f o r l o s s o r damage a r i s i n g f r o m i n j u r i e s t o o r d e a t h o f a g u e s t w h i l e b e i n g t r a n s p o r t e d w i t h o u t payment t h e r e f o r i n o r upon s a i d m o t o r v e h i c l e , r e s u l t i n g from the o p e r a t i o n t h e r e o f , u n l e s s such i n j u r i e s or d e a t h a r e c a u s e d by t h e w i l l f u l o r wanton m i s c o n d u c t o f s u c h o p e r a t o r , owner, o r p e r s o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the o p e r a t i o n of the motor v e h i c l e . " 6 that the 2100131 w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m b y v i r t u e o f t h e supreme c o u r t ' s Ex p a r t e Essary, decision i n 992 So. 2d 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . R o b e r t and Sharon conceded t h a t t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t P e n n i n g t o n was entitled to the negligence c l a i m by v i r t u e o f t h e Guest Passenger S t a t u t e ; however, t h e y asserted t h a t he was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o the wantonness c l a i m . Specifically, they argued: "The f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e a r e a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e f a c t s i n B a r k e r v. Towns, 747 So. 2d 907 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , w h i c h h e l d t h a t t h e i s s u e o f w a n t o n n e s s s h o u l d be d e c i d e d b y t h e j u r y . Towns, t h e defendant d r i v e r , f a i l e d t o y i e l d the right-of-way t o an o n c o m i n g t r u c k t h a t s h o u l d have b e e n c l e a r l y v i s i b l e . The t r u c k d r i v e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t Towns n e v e r s t o p p e d b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n . The t r u c k s t r u c k T o w n s ' v e h i c l e k i l l i n g Towns a n d i n j u r i n g h i s p a s s e n g e r . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i s s u e o f w a n t o n n e s s was r e v e r s e d b y t h e A l a b a m a Civil Court of Appeals which r u l e d there was sufficient proof of evidence to present the wantonness c l a i m t o a j u r y . "Like the p l a i n t i f f i n Barker, [Robert and S h a r o n h a v e ] ' p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o show that [Pennington] entered the i n t e r s e c t i o n a f t e r seeing the truck approaching' the i n t e r s e c t i o n . I d . at 909. A l t h o u g h he d e n i e s seeing the truck, P e n n i n g t o n a d m i t t e d t o h a v i n g an u n o b s t r u c t e d v i e w in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e oncoming t r u c k s A d d i t i o n a l l y , a n d as was t h e c a s e i n B a r k e r , an e y e w i t n e s s saw P e n n i n g t o n r a c e t h r o u g h t h e m e d i a n i n t o t h e p a t h o f t h e o n c o m i n g t r u c k , 'and t h e r e i s no dispute that the truck driver had the right-of-way.' I d . a t 909. ... T h e r e f o r e , as t h e court held i n Barker, '[t]hese facts c o n s t i t u t e [ ] 7 2100131 substantial evidence supporting t h e wantonness c l a i m ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e i s s u e [ s h o u l d be] p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . ' I d . a t 909. "The f a c t s t h a t made w a n t o n n e s s a j u r y q u e s t i o n i n C l a r k v. B l a c k , 630 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , a r e p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e . I n C l a r k , t h e d e f e n d a n t was v e r y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e should have been familiar with t h e dangers associated with the i n t e r s e c t i o n . I d . a t 1016. P e n n i n g t o n was v e r y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n b e c a u s e he t r a v e r s e d i t r o u t i n e l y l e a v i n g Domino's t o d e l i v e r p i z z a s ... , i n f a c t , h i s d e l i v e r y a r e a i n c l u d e d A s h f o r d , which would r e q u i r e him t o use t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n t o t u r n l e f t . I n C l a r k , one h a z a r d was a ' h i l l c r e s t ' that l i m i t e d v i s i b i l i t y of the i n t e r s e c t i o n . In t h i s case, the hazard i s c r o s s i n g a t l e a s t s i x l a n e s o f t r a f f i c on a h i g h w a y . " L i k e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n C l a r k , P e n n i n g t o n knew o f h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o y i e l d t o o n c o m i n g t r a f f i c b u t made no a t t e m p t t o do s o . A l s o l i k e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n Clark, Pennington attempted t o race across the i n t e r s e c t i o n w i t h o u t any r e g a r d t o oncoming t r a f f i c . As t h e Supreme C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d i n [Ex p a r t e ] E s s a r y , 992 So. 2d 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , d i s r e g a r d o f known d a n g e r s o f an i n t e r s e c t i o n i s s u f f i c i e n t t o make wantonness a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y . "Judge Thompson i n Monroe v . Brown, 307 F. Supp. 2d 1268 [(M.D. A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ] , d e n i e d a d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r summary judgment on t h e i s s u e of wantonness i n v o l v i n g a r e a r - e n d c o l l i s i o n because the defendant c o n s c i o u s l y i g n o r e d t h e r u l e s o f t h e road. I n Monroe, the p l a i n t i f f a p p r o a c h e d an i n t e r s e c t i o n , braked, and then r e l e a s e d t h e brake. The d e f e n d a n t d r i v e r assumed t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was g o i n g t o p r o c e e d through t h e y e l l o w l i g h t and t h e defendant d r i v e r i n t e n d e d t o do t h e same. The p l a i n t i f f , however, s t o p p e d a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and the defendant d r i v e r rear ended t h e p l a i n t i f f [ r ] a t h e r than h e e d i n g t h e y e l l o w l i g h t and coming t o 8 2100131 a s t o p . Judge Thompson f o u n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d r i v e r c o n s c i o u s l y a c c e l e r a t e d assuming t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f would proceed through t h e y e l l o w l i g h t , c r e a t i n g a r i s k f o r a l l those i n v o l v e d . Pennington, l i k e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n Monroe, made a c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n t o ignore the r u l e s of the road. " P e n n i n g t o n ' s c o n d u c t was m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n t than the d r i v e r i n Essary. F i r s t , i n Essary, the Supreme C o u r t e m p h a s i z e d t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e was p a r t i c u l a r d a n g e r a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d have b e e n aware o f . E s s a r y makes no m e n t i o n o f t h e s i z e o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n d p r e s u m a b l y , i t was n o t an i s s u e . But i n t h i s case, Pennington had t o t r a v e r s e s i x l a n e s o f t r a f f i c , two t u r n l a n e s , a n d a m e d i a n t o c r o s s t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n . R a t h e r t h a n e x e r c i s i n g more caution a t t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n , Pennington d i d the o p p o s i t e by r a c i n g a c r o s s i t . "Second, i n E s s a r y , t h e u n d i s p u t e d t e s t i m o n y showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d , a t a minimum, come t o a r o l l i n g s t o p s u g g e s t i n g t h a t he d i d n o t s i m p l y ignore h i s legal duty to yield to traffic. P e n n i n g t o n made no s u c h a t t e m p t t o s t o p b u t r a c e d through t h e median demonstrating a conscious d i s r e g a r d o f a known d u t y . A r e a s o n a b l e j u r y c o u l d find that Pennington acted consciously. Third, unlike the facts i n Essary, a jury could f i n d that P e n n i n g t o n ' s j u d g m e n t was a f f e c t e d b e c a u s e he was on a p e r s o n a l e r r a n d w h i l e a t work. " C h r i s Beck, an e y e w i t n e s s , t e s t i f i e d that Pennington d i d n o t s t o p i n t h e median. A f t e r r a c i n g through t h e median, Pennington j u s t n a r r o w l y m i s s e d c o l l i d i n g w i t h Beck's t r u c k Pennington has f a i l e d t o e x p l a i n how he m i s s e d s e e i n g two l a r g e t r u c k s . E v e n b y h i s own t e s t i m o n y , P e n n i n g t o n h a d a c l e a r l i n e o f s i g h t f o r 500 f e e t i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f oncoming eastbound t r a f f i c . But Pennington p r o v i d e s no e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why he d i d n o t s e e t h e two t r u c k s t h a t were a l m o s t i n t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n i n f r o n t 9 2100131 o f h i m . A r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e drawn i n f a v o r o f [Robert and Sharon] i s t h a t P e n n i n g t o n d i d see t h e t r u c k s a n d made t h e c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n t o a t t e m p t t o cross the i n t e r s e c t i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a reasonable i n f e r e n c e i s t h a t P e n n i n g t o n made t h e c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n t o c r o s s t h e highway w i t h o u t even c h e c k i n g f o r oncoming t r a f f i c i n t h e eastbound l a n e s o f t h e highway. II "Pennington's f a i l u r e t o y i e l d the r i g h t - o f - w a y v i o l a t e d t h e R u l e s o f t h e Road. S e c t i o n 32-5A-114 o f t h e A l a b a m a Code r e q u i r e d P e n n i n g t o n t o y i e l d t h e right-of-way to the t r a f f i c on Highway 84. I f P e n n i n g t o n d i d n o t s e e t h e t r u c k s , he b r e a c h e d h i s d u t y t o keep a l o o k o u t f o r o t h e r v e h i c l e s on t h e road. Pennington admitted that p u l l i n g out i n f r o n t of a v e h i c l e would p l a c e h i s p a s s e n g e r s a t r i s k f o r i n j u r y . He a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t a t t e m p t i n g t o c r o s s a h i g h w a y w i t h o u t m a k i n g s u r e t h e l a n e s were c l e a r w o u l d be d a n g e r o u s . " (Footnotes omitted.) F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , however, t h e t r i a l judgment g r a n t i n g P e n n i n g t o n ' s court entered a summary-judgment m o t i o n with r e s p e c t t o b o t h t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m and t h e wantonness c l a i m . Regarding t h e wantonness c l a i m , t h e t r i a l court stated: "The r e m a i n i n g i s s u e i s [ P e n n i n g t o n ' s ] M o t i o n for Summary Judgment on [Robert and Sharon's] w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m . The C o u r t h a s c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d the e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s w i t h a view most f a v o r a b l e t o [ R o b e r t a n d S h a r o n ] . [ P e n n i n g t o n ] t e s t i f i e d at h i s deposition that h i s foot slipped o f f t h e b r a k e p e d a l j u s t p r i o r t o t h e w r e c k ... a n d t h a t he t h e n ' l o o k e d a n d saw t h a t I w o u l d have enough t i m e f r o m t h e t r a f f i c t h a t I saw That I 10 2100131 w o u l d h a v e enough t i m e t o g e t a c r o s s . ' ... He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he n e v e r saw t h e t r u c k t h a t h i t him. ... B a s e d on t h i s e v i d e n c e , [Pennington's] conduct i s s i m p l e n e g l i g e n c e under Alabama l a w . "However, [Robert and Sharon] a l s o o f f e r t h e e y e - w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y , by a f f i d a v i t , o f C h r i s Beck. A l t h o u g h c o n c l u s o r y , b u t a c c e p t e d b y t h e C o u r t as t r u t h f u l a n d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o [Robert and S h a r o n ] , Mr. B e c k s t a t e s t h a t , ' I t a p p e a r e d t o me t h a t [ P e n n i n g t o n ] was t r y i n g t o r a c e a c r o s s f o u r l a n e s i n an a t t e m p t t o b e a t t h e o n c o m i n g t r a f f i c . ' "The C o u r t b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s c a s e i s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e c a s e o f Ex p a r t e E s s a r y , 992 So. 2d 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . The e s s e n t i a l h o l d i n g o f E s s a r y i s t h a t an a t t e m p t t o 'beat t h e t r a f f i c ' c a n n o t r i s e b e y o n d n e g l i g e n c e a n d become wanton o r r e c k l e s s conduct w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 'At b e s t , t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' e v i d e n c e shows t h a t E s s a r y ... made an e r r o r i n j u d g m e n t when he a t t e m p t e d t o " b e a t the t r a f f i c " ' I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e most f a v o r a b l e e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e t o [Robert and Sharon] (the a f f i d a v i t o f C h r i s Beck) i s t h a t [ P e n n i n g t o n ] was a t t e m p t i n g t o 'beat t h e t r a f f i c ' when t h e w r e c k occurred. " [ R o b e r t and Sharon's] position tracks the a r g u m e n t made b y t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e i n h e r d i s s e n t i n Essary that the jury should consider the t o t a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s on a 'beat t h e t r a f f i c ' l a w s u i t on whether t h e Defendant has t h e r e q u i s i t e mental s t a t e to j u s t i f y a wanton c o n d u c t c l a i m . L i k e w i s e t h i s C o u r t i s u n c o m f o r t a b l e i n h a v i n g t o r u l e on a p a r t y ' s m e n t a l s t a t e o r a w a r e n e s s on a 'beat t h e t r a f f i c ' case. Nonetheless, the Court i s unable t o r e a d E s s a r y i n a n y way o t h e r t h a n e s t a b l i s h i n g a rule that a Plaintiff must offer additional a g g r a v a t i n g e v i d e n c e t o w i t h s t a n d summary j u d g m e n t on a wantonness claim based on 'beating the traffic.' 11 2100131 " A c c o r d i n g l y , [ P e n n i n g t o n ' s ] M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment i s GRANTED." R o b e r t a n d S h a r o n t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h e supreme c o u r t on September 23, 2010, a n d t h e supreme court transferred the 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 § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Analysis Robert and Sharon f i r s t argue t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n g r a n t i n g P e n n i n g t o n ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e wantonness c l a i m because, us i s distinguishable case now before Pennington result us, from t h e y s a y , t h e c a s e now b e f o r e E s s a r y . They a r g u e there i s evidence was c o n s c i o u s t h a t harm w o u l d from h i s attempting t o beat w h e r e a s , i n E s s a r y , t h e r e was no s u c h The that, i n the indicating likely or probably t h e oncoming traffic evidence. supreme c o u r t s u m m a r i z e d t h e f a c t u a l b a c k g r o u n d p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f E s s a r y as f o l l o w s : "On t h e e v e n i n g o f May 22, 2002, E s s a r y was d r i v i n g w e s t on M c P h e r s o n L a n d i n g Road i n T u s c a l o o s a County. E s s a r y reached t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f McPherson L a n d i n g Road a n d Highway 69, where a s t o p s i g n o b l i g a t e s t h e w e s t b o u n d t r a f f i c on M c P h e r s o n L a n d i n g Road t o s t o p a n d y i e l d t o t r a f f i c t r a v e l i n g n o r t h and s o u t h on Highway 69. T h e r e a r e no s t o p s i g n s h a l t i n g t r a f f i c t r a v e l i n g on Highway 69. As E s s a r y proceeded through the i n t e r s e c t i o n , h i s v e h i c l e c o l l i d e d w i t h a v e h i c l e t r a v e l i n g n o r t h on Highway 69 t h a t was b e i n g d r i v e n b y L a t r i c e B u r r e l l a n d 12 that and 2100131 o c c u p i e d by Irene B a n k s and Loretta Pratcher. "On August 31, 2004, B u r r e l l , Banks, and P r a t c h e r s u e d E s s a r y and h i s a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r e r i n the Hale C i r c u i t Court to recover damages f o r n e g l i g e n c e , w a n t o n n e s s , and t r e s p a s s . The c a s e was l a t e r t r a n s f e r r e d to the T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t Court. " E s s a r y moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a s s e r t i n g that the negligence claim was barred by the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s and that his conduct d i d not c o n s t i t u t e e i t h e r wantonness or a t r e s p a s s . E s s a r y s u p p o r t e d h i s m o t i o n w i t h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , h i s d e p o s i t i o n and t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f Burrell and Banks. Essary testified in his d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he d i d n o t see B u r r e l l ' s v e h i c l e when he entered the intersection. Burrell's d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t E s s a r y made a ' r o l l i n g s t o p ' a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and t h a t he t h e n p u l l e d o u t i n f r o n t o f t h e v e h i c l e she was d r i v i n g . E s s a r y a r g u e d i n h i s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t that "'the evidence i n d i c a t e s a t most that [ E s s a r y ] made a " r o l l i n g s t o p " and f a i l e d to yield the right-of-way. [Essary], w i t h o u t d i s p u t e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he looked b o t h ways b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and did not see [Burrell's] vehicle a p p r o a c h i n g . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he may have f a i l e d t o see [ B u r r e l l ' s ] v e h i c l e due to the a r t i f i c i a l l i g h t i n g along the highway. T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t [Essary] was d r u n k , i n t o x i c a t e d , t h a t he was conscious t h a t [ B u r r e l l ' s ] v e h i c l e was n e a r o r t h a t a c o l l i s i o n was a b o u t t o o c c u r . T h a t i s , there i s no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence that [Essary's] conduct rose to the l e v e l of w a n t o n n e s s , as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n Alabama.' "In o p p o s i t i o n to the 13 summary-judgment m o t i o n , 2100131 the p l a i n t i f f s s u b m i t t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , an a f f i d a v i t b y B u r r e l l , i n w h i c h she s t a t e d t h a t , i n h e r ' o p i n i o n , ' E s s a r y came t o ' r o l l i n g s t o p ' a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and, a f t e r a v e h i c l e b e i n g d r i v e n by E r i c a Banks p a s s e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a c c e l e r a t e d i n t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n as he p a s s e d t h e s t o p s i g n . B u r r e l l s t a t e d : ' I n my o p i n i o n , he was a t t e m p t i n g t o "shoot t h r o u g h t h e gap," between t h e l e a d v e h i c l e and t h e v e h i c l e I was d r i v i n g . ' " A f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f E s s a r y on a l l c l a i m s . The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e r e was no s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f w a n t o n c o n d u c t . The t r i a l court subsequently denied a postjudgment motion by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , who t h e n a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t . We t r a n s f e r r e d t h e c a s e t o the Alabama C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) . The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s affirmed the t r i a l court's judgment on t h e negligence claim and t h e t r e s p a s s claim, but reversed the t r i a l court's judgment on t h e wantonness c l a i m , h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s had established a genuine issue of material fact r e g a r d i n g whether Essary had acted wantonly. B u r r e l l v. E s s a r y , [992 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ] . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Court of C i v i l Appeals held: "'Burrell's testimony regarding the circumstances of the c o l l i s i o n c o n f l i c t e d w i t h E s s a r y ' s t e s t i m o n y and tended t o prove a s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s from which a j u r y c o u l d draw a " r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e " t h a t Essary knew t h a t t h e v e h i c l e d r i v e n b y B u r r e l l was c l o s e t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n when he accelerated into the i n t e r s e c t i o n d e s p i t e b e i n g aware t h a t h i s d o i n g so w o u l d l i k e l y or probably r e s u l t i n i n j u r y to the plaintiffs.' "992 So. 2d a t 5. E s s a r y f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing, which the Court of C i v i l Appeals 14 2100131 overruled. He then petitioned this Court f o r c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w a l l e g i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s ' d e c i s i o n c o n f l i c t e d w i t h W i l s o n v. C u e v a s , 420 So. 2d 62 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . See R u l e 3 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( D ) , A l a . R. App. P. We g r a n t e d t h e petition, a n d we now r e v e r s e the part of the judgment o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s t h a t 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 on t h e w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m and r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f E s s a r y on t h a t claim." 992 So. 2d a t 7-8. Explaining i t s rationale f o r holding that Essary was e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e w a n t o n n e s s claim, the Essary Court, i n pertinent part, stated: "'Wantonness' h a s b e e n d e f i n e d b y t h i s C o u r t as t h e c o n s c i o u s d o i n g o f some a c t o r t h e o m i s s i o n o f some d u t y w h i l e k n o w i n g o f t h e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s and b e i n g c o n s c i o u s t h a t , f r o m d o i n g o r o m i t t i n g t o do an a c t , i n j u r y w i l l l i k e l y o r p r o b a b l y result. Bozeman v . C e n t r a l Bank o f t h e S o u t h , 646 So. 2d 601 (Ala. 1 9 9 4 ) . To c o n s t i t u t e w a n t o n n e s s , i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e a c t o r know t h a t a p e r s o n i s w i t h i n t h e zone made d a n g e r o u s b y h i s c o n d u c t ; i t i s enough t h a t he knows t h a t a s t r o n g possibility e x i s t s t h a t o t h e r s may r i g h t f u l l y come w i t h i n t h a t z o n e . J o s e p h v. S t a g g s , 519 So. 2d 952, 954 ( A l a . 1988). A l s o , i t i s not e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e a c t o r s h o u l d have e n t e r t a i n e d a s p e c i f i c d e s i g n o r i n t e n t to i n j u r e the p l a i n t i f f , only that the actor i s 'conscious' that injury w i l l likely or probably r e s u l t from h i s a c t i o n s . I d . 'Conscious' has been d e f i n e d as ' " p e r c e i v i n g , a p p r e h e n d i n g , o r n o t i c i n g w i t h a degree of c o n t r o l l e d thought or o b s e r v a t i o n : c a p a b l e o f o r marked by t h o u g h t , w i l l , d e s i g n , o r perception"'; ' " h a v i n g an a w a r e n e s s o f one's own e x i s t e n c e , s e n s a t i o n s , a n d t h o u g h t s , a n d o f one's environment; capable of complex response to 15 2100131 e n v i r o n m e n t ; d e l i b e r a t e . " ' B e r r y v . F i f e , 590 So. 2d 884, 885 ( A l a . 1991) (quoting Webster's New C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 239 (1981) a n d The A m e r i c a n H e r i t a g e D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e E n g l i s h Language 2 83 (1969), r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . " A d d i t i o n a l l y , when d e t e r m i n i n g i f a d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e wanton c o n d u c t , i t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e c o u r t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between wantonness and negligence. "'"'Wantonness i s n o t m e r e l y a h i g h e r degree o f c u l p a b i l i t y than negligence. Negligence and wantonness, p l a i n l y and simply, are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t t o r t concepts of actionable culpability. I m p l i c i t i n wanton, w i l l f u l , o r r e c k l e s s m i s c o n d u c t i s an a c t i n g , w i t h k n o w l e d g e o f danger, or w i t h consciousness, that the d o i n g o r n o t d o i n g o f some a c t w i l l l i k e l y r e s u l t i n i n j u r y .... "'"'Negligence i s usually characterized as an inattention, thoughtlessness, or heedlessness, a lack of due care; whereas wantonness is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as ... a c o n s c i o u s ... a c t . "Simple negligence i s the inadvertent o m i s s i o n o f d u t y ; a n d wanton o r w i l l f u l m i s c o n d u c t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as s u c h b y t h e state o f mind w i t h which t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n i s done o r o m i t t e d . " M c N e i l v . Munson S.S. L i n e s , 184 A l a . 420, [ 4 2 3 ] , 63 So. 992 (1913) '"' " T o l b e r t v. T o l b e r t , 903 So. 2d 103, 114-15 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A n d e r s o n , 682 So. 2d 467, 470 ( A l a . 1996), q u o t i n g i n t u r n Lynn S t r i c k l a n d S a l e s & Serv., I n c . v. Aero-Lane F a b r i c a t o r s , I n c . , 510 So. 2d 142, 145-46 ( A l a . 1987)) (emphasis J J , added). 16 2100131 "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t s c o n s t i t u t e w a n t o n c o n d u c t depends on t h e f a c t s i n e a c h p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . Ex p a r t e A n d e r s o n , 682 So. 2d a t 470. I n s u p p o r t o f h i s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , E s s a r y s u b m i t t e d h i s d e p o s i t i o n and t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f B u r r e l l and I r e n e B a n k s . I n h i s deposition, Essary testified t h a t he drove on M c P h e r s o n L a n d i n g Road f r e q u e n t l y and t h a t he was f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n where t h e c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d . E s s a r y s t a t e d t h a t on t h e e v e n i n g o f t h e a c c i d e n t he was t r a v e l i n g w e s t on M c P h e r s o n L a n d i n g Road b e c a u s e he w a n t e d t o go t o a c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e to purchase c i g a r e t t e s . Essary a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , as he a p p r o a c h e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , he came t o a f u l l s t o p , c h e c k e d t h e t r a f f i c on Highway 69 i n b o t h d i r e c t i o n s , and d i d n o t see any v e h i c l e s c o m i n g f r o m e i t h e r t h e n o r t h o r t h e s o u t h on Highway 69. E s s a r y t h e n d r o v e o u t i n t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , where h i s vehicle collided with Burrell's. "In her deposition, a c c i d e n t as f o l l o w s : Burrell described " ' [ E s s a r y ' s c o u n s e l : ] Okay. A l l r i g h t . I want you t o t e l l me t h e n what h a p p e n e d t h e n , f r o m t h e t i m e you saw [ E s s a r y ' s ] c a r for the first time until the wreck happened. "'[Burrell:] I was riding behind [Erica Banks's sport-utility vehicle]. [ P r a t c h e r ] saw t h e c a r f i r s t and she was s t a r t i n g t o t e l l me t h a t she d i d n ' t t h i n k t h a t [ E s s a r y ' s ] c a r was g o i n g t o s t o p a t t h e s t o p s i g n . We were d r i v i n g and [ B a n k s ' s sport-utility vehicle] passed the i n t e r s e c t i o n . And [ E s s a r y ' s c a r ] ... was approaching the i n t e r s e c t i o n " ' "'... He rolled up 17 to the stop sign, the 2100131 but he n e v e r came t o a c o m p l e t e stop. " ' And b y t h e t i m e t h a t I r e a l i z e d he w a s n ' t g o i n g t o s t o p , I t h r e w on t h e b r a k e s , b u t I knew I was g o i n g t o h i t h i m . I t was t o o l a t e . "'[Essary's counsel:] So i t s o u n d s l i k e y o u ' r e d e s c r i b i n g a c a r t h a t maybe s l o w e d down b u t d i d n ' t make a f u l l s t o p . " ' [ B u r r e l l : ] Yes. "'[Essary's counsel:] Made k i n d o f what y o u c a l l a r o l l i n g s t o p ; i s t h a t what you're saying? " ' [ B u r r e l l : ] Yes.' "Additionally, Burrell s t a t e d i n an affidavit: "'Mr. E s s a r y a p p e a r e d , i n my o p i n i o n , t o come t o a r o l l i n g s t o p , w h e r e i n he observed the l e a d v e h i c l e c o n t a i n i n g Mrs. E r i c a Banks w h i c h was r i g h t i n f r o n t o f t h e v e h i c l e I was d r i v i n g . As he o b s e r v e d M r s . Banks d r i v e b y , he d i d n o t s t o p , b u t a c t u a l l y a c c e l e r a t e d j u s t as he p a s s e d t h e s t o p s i g n . I n my o p i n i o n , he was a t t e m p t i n g t o "shoot t h r o u g h t h e gap," between t h e lead vehicle and t h e v e h i c l e I was driving.' " "The e v i d e n c e , v i e w e d , as i t must b e , i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , t h e n o n m o v a n t s , shows t h a t E s s a r y s l o w e d t o a ' r o l l i n g s t o p ' a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and a t t e m p t e d t o c r o s s t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n between two m o v i n g vehicles. The plaintiffs' 18 2100131 c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of E s s a r y ' s attempt to cross the i n t e r s e c t i o n b e t w e e n two v e h i c l e s as ' a c c e l e r a t i n g ' a f t e r a ' r o l l i n g s t o p ' t o ' s h o o t t h e gap' d o e s n o t e l e v a t e E s s a r y ' s a c t u a l conduct as o b s e r v e d by the plaintiffs from the n e g l i g e n t f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e good j u d g m e n t t o a w a n t o n a c t c o n s t i t u t i n g r e c k l e s s i n d i f f e r e n c e t o a known d a n g e r l i k e l y t o i n f l i c t i n j u r y . At best, the p l a i n t i f f s ' evidence shows t h a t E s s a r y , l i k e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n W i l s o n , made an e r r o r i n j u d g m e n t when he a t t e m p t e d t o 'beat the t r a f f i c ' o r ' s h o o t t h e gap' by p a s s i n g b e t w e e n B a n k s ' s v e h i c l e and B u r r e l l ' s v e h i c l e . W i l s o n h o l d s t h a t such conduct i s not wanton. "Although the evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t E s s a r y knowingly e n t e r e d the i n t e r s e c t i o n , there i s n o t h i n g from which the t r i e r of f a c t c o u l d i n f e r t h a t , i n moving his vehicle through the intersection, E s s a r y ' s s t a t e of mind c o n t a i n e d the requisite c o n s c i o u s n e s s , awareness, or p e r c e p t i o n t h a t i n j u r y was l i k e l y t o , o r w o u l d p r o b a b l y , r e s u l t . I n d e e d , the r i s k o f i n j u r y t o E s s a r y h i m s e l f was as r e a l as any r i s k o f i n j u r y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s . A b s e n t some e v i d e n c e o f i m p a i r e d judgment, s u c h as f r o m t h e consumption of alcohol, we do not expect an i n d i v i d u a l t o engage i n s e l f - d e s t r u c t i v e b e h a v i o r . See G r i f f i n Lumber Co. v. H a r p e r , 252 A l a . 93, 95, 39 So. 2d 399, 401 (1949) ('There i s a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n r e c o g n i z e d by t h e l a w t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n i n p o s s e s s i o n of h i s normal f a c u l t i e s i n a s i t u a t i o n known t o be d a n g e r o u s t o h i m s e l f , w i l l g i v e h e e d t o instincts of safety and self-preservation to exercise ordinary care for his own personal p r o t e c t i o n . I t i s f o u n d e d on a l a w o f n a t u r e and has [as] i t s m o t i v e t h e f e a r o f p a i n o r d e a t h . A t l a n t i c C o a s t L i n e R. Co. v. W e t h e r i n g t o n , 245 A l a . 3 1 3 ( 9 ) , 16 So. 2d 720 [ ( 1 9 4 4 ) ] . ' ) . "The f a c t s h e r e p r e s e n t e d do n o t e s t a b l i s h any b a s i s f r o m w h i c h t o c o n c l u d e t h a t E s s a r y was n o t p o s s e s s e d o f h i s n o r m a l f a c u l t i e s , s u c h as f r o m v o l u n t a r y i n t o x i c a t i o n , r e n d e r i n g him i n d i f f e r e n t t o 19 2100131 t h e r i s k o f i n j u r y t o h i m s e l f when c r o s s i n g t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n i f he c o l l i d e d w i t h a n o t h e r v e h i c l e . Nor i s t h e a c t as d e s c r i b e d by B u r r e l l so i n h e r e n t l y r e c k l e s s t h a t we m i g h t o t h e r w i s e i m p u t e t o E s s a r y a d e p r a v i t y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h d i s r e g a r d of i n s t i n c t s of s a f e t y and s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n . We t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h e p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o o f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g that Essary was c o n s c i o u s t h a t i n j u r y w o u l d l i k e l y o r p r o b a b l y r e s u l t from h i s a c t i o n s . " 992 So. In 2d a t the 9-12. case now before e s t a b l i s h e d that Pennington at the edge automobiles of pass e v i d e n c e was Domino's us, the undisputed evidence stopped at the stop s i g n parking lot before beginning to and located let c r o s s Highway several 84. i n c o n f l i c t r e g a r d i n g whether Pennington i n t h e p a v e d gap The stopped i n the c o n c r e t e median b e f o r e a t t e m p t i n g t o cross the eastbound l a n e s ; however, f o r p u r p o s e s of r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we must v i e w t h a t c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e i n the light purposes most f a v o r a b l e to Robert and Sharon. o f r e v i e w i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t , we Hence, accept for Beck's t e s t i m o n y t h a t P e n n i n g t o n d i d n o t s t o p i n t h e p a v e d gap i n t h e c o n c r e t e m e d i a n and t h a t he a p p e a r e d t o be a t t e m p t i n g t o b e a t the we oncoming traffic. Nonetheless, find that the trial c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n h o l d i n g t h a t , u n d e r t h e supreme c o u r t ' s decision i n Essary, Pennington 20 was entitled to a summary 2100131 judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e wantonness c l a i m . I n E s s a r y , t h e f a c t s , viewed i n the l i g h t indicated most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t made a " r o l l i n g s t o p " and then a t t e m p t e d t o b e a t t h e o n c o m i n g t r a f f i c . I n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e us, the facts, and S h a r o n , the most f a v o r a b l e t o R o b e r t i n d i c a t e t h a t P e n n i n g t o n made a c o m p l e t e s t o p a t s t o p s i g n l o c a t e d a t t h e edge o f Domino's p a r k i n g l o t a n d then t r i e d the t o b e a t t h e oncoming t r a f f i c . case distance did; in viewed i n the l i g h t now b e f o r e u s , P e n n i n g t o n i n order t o beat I t appears t h a t , i n had t o cross t h e oncoming t r a f f i c a greater than Essary h o w e v e r , as was t h e c a s e i n E s s a r y , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h e case intoxicated indicating now b e f o r e u s i n d i c a t i n g that Pennington was o r o t h e r w i s e i m p a i r e d a n d t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e that he was c o n s c i o u s t h a t probably result from traffic. T h e r e f o r e , we f i n d harm w o u l d h i s attempting t o beat l i k e l y or t h e oncoming no m e r i t i n R o b e r t a n d S h a r o n ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from Essary. R o b e r t a n d S h a r o n a l s o a r g u e t h a t t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s i s f a c t u a l l y more a n a l o g o u s t o C l a r k v. B l a c k , 630 So. 2d 1012 (Ala. 1993), a case i n which 21 t h e supreme court reversed a 2100131 d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n favor of the defendant with respect t o a wantonness c l a i m , than i t i s to Essary. In Clark, "[t]he evidence indicated that Black was traveling w e s t on U n i o n C h a p e l Road when she a p p r o a c h e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f U n i o n C h a p e l Road a n d Watermelon Road. Black was familiar with the i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n d she knew t h a t a s t o p s i g n r e q u i r e d traffic on U n i o n Chapel Road t o s t o p at the i n t e r s e c t i o n . T r a f f i c on W a t e r m e l o n Road was n o t r e q u i r e d t o s t o p a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n d t h e r e was a ' h i l l c r e s t ' on W a t e r m e l o n Road j u s t n o r t h o f t h e intersection that impaired v i s i b i l i t y . As B l a c k a p p r o a c h e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , she f a i l e d t o s t o p , a n d she e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n a n d c o l l i d e d w i t h a motorcycle driven by the p l a i n t i f f , who was t r a v e l i n g s o u t h on W a t e r m e l o n Road. T e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l b y an e y e w i t n e s s t o t h e a c c i d e n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t B l a c k was t r a v e l i n g a t a ' v e r y f a s t s p e e d . ' C l a r k , 630 So. 2d a t 1016." Essary, 992 So. 2d a t 12-13. The E s s a r y C o u r t distinguished Clark: "The i n s t a 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 C l a r k . The e v i d e n c e i n C l a r k i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t knew o f a p a r t i c u l a r d a n g e r a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , t h a t she was t r a v e l i n g a t a h i g h r a t e o f s p e e d , a n d t h a t s h e i g n o r e d a s t o p s i g n . No s u c h set of circumstances e x i s t here. T h e r e i s no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t E s s a r y was aware o f any p a r t i c u l a r d a n g e r a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f M c P h e r s o n L a n d i n g Road and Highway 69, a n d he d i d n o t s p e e d t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n while i g n o r i n g the stop sign. Instead, B u r r e l l ' s t e s t i m o n y shows t h a t when E s s a r y r e a c h e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , he s l o w e d a n d made a 'rolling stop.' This testimony, u n l i k e the eyewitness's testimony i n Clark, does not allow f o r the reasonable inference that Essary's c o n d u c t was wanton." 22 2100131 992 So. 2d a t 13. In the case indicating that comparable to now before Pennington us, knew the h i l l c r e s t of that M o r e o v e r , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e there a was involved stop sign median. find there is no indicating that gap i n t h e evidence i n Robert and Sharon's concrete indicating was t r a v e l i n g a t a h i g h r a t e o f s p e e d . no m e r i t i n Clark. s i g n l o c a t e d a t t h e edge o f l o c a t e d a t the paved Finally, Pennington we was danger t h a t he i g n o r e d a Domino's p a r k i n g l o t a n d t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e a evidence particular indicating s t o p s i g n -- he o b e y e d t h e s t o p i s no that Therefore, argument that the p r e s e n t c a s e i s more a n a l o g o u s t o C l a r k t h a n i t i s t o E s s a r y . Finally, the summary Robert judgment a n d S h a r o n a r g u e t h a t we s h o u l d with respect reverse t o the wantonness claim because, they say, a j u r y should decide whether, i n l i g h t of all the circumstances, However, t h i s Pennington's conduct was wanton. i s t h e same a r g u m e n t t h a t was a d v o c a t e d by t h e d i s s e n t and r e j e c t e d by t h e m a j o r i t y i n E s s a r y . T h e r e f o r e , cannot r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l we c o u r t b a s e d on t h a t argument. A c c o r d i n g l y , b a s e d on t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e supreme 23 court 2100131 i n E s s a r y , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 24 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,
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.
