Ellis Isbell v. Aztecas Mexican Grill

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/30/2011 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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, 2010-2011 2100333 Ellis Isbell v. Aztecas Mexican G r i l l Appeal from S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-287) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Ellis Grill Isbell filed ("Aztecas") connection premises. with a complaint alleging an i n j u r y against Aztecas negligence Mexican and wantonness i n he s u f f e r e d w h i l e A z t e c a s answered and d e n i e d l i a b i l i t y , on Aztecas's and i t l a t e r 2100333 moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . court entered Following a the postjudgment summary denial motion, On June 2 1 , judgment by in operation Isbell 2010, the trial favor of Aztecas. law of Isbell's of t i m e l y appealed. Our supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s c o u r t pursuant to § 7(6), A l a . Code The 1975. evidence summary-judgment facts. Aztecas submitted motion is a serves Mexican food. Tracie Isbell by Aztecas indicates the ("Tracie"), medication. Isbell's him pain went to a booth their pertinent City that dinner to I s b e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he has had and Aztecas for on-the-job f o r which back he condition, takes injury that daily pain he is often s i t t i n g on a p a d d e d s e a t , so t h e y r e q u e s t e d t h e A z t e c a s h o s t e s s s e a t them i n a Isbell following of i t s I s b e l l and T r a c i e e a c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f preexisting comfortable support On A p r i l 24, 2008, I s b e l l and h i s w i f e , t h r e e b a c k s u r g e r i e s b e c a u s e o f a 1998 causes in restaurant located i n Pell celebrate Isbell's birthday. still 12-2- and m e a l and to the door to were s e r v e d t h e i r 2 that booth. Tracie t e s t i f i e d that, adjacent more the food. after being seated i n k i t c h e n , they Isbell ordered stated that, 2100333 during in the booth seat the other Isbell felt the t h e m e a l , he was aware t h a t a n o t h e r p e r s o n was person directly moving b e h i n d h i m b e c a u s e he c o u l d i n h i s own seat booth causing seat Isbell Isbell upon which to f a l l t h e meal. testified Isbell Shortly thereafter, sitting collapsed, was to the f l o o r . that, immediately a f t e r f a l l i n g to the he f e l t e x c r u c i a t i n g p a i n i n h i s b a c k a n d l e g s . s t a t e d t h a t two o r t h r e e other restaurant Isbell o f A z t e c a s ' s employees a s s i s t e d him t o h i s f e e t a n d t h a t he was h u m i l i a t e d and during feel t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when he was a l m o s t f i n i s h e d e a t i n g , he t h e p e r s o n b e h i n d h i m move a g a i n . floor, sitting employees when t h o s e laughed at employees him. Tracie testified t h a t one o f A z t e c a s ' s e m p l o y e e s o f f e r e d t o c a l l an ambulance but that insisted that Isbell he be t a k e n declined home. that Isbell sought medical treatment f o r h i s pain offer and testified instead that t h e n e x t day. he Isbell s u e d A z t e c a s on O c t o b e r 1, 2008. In their depositions, both Isbell t h a t t h e y had n o t n o t i c e d any d e f e c t t h e y were s e a t e d , and I s b e l l t h e b o o t h was u n s t a b l e , and T r a c i e testified i n the booth a t the time stated that, i f he h a d t h o u g h t he w o u l d have a s k e d t o be s e a t e d 3 at a 2100333 different table. or N e i t h e r I s b e l l n o r T r a c i e h e a r d any c r e a k i n g o t h e r n o i s e from the booth s e a t b e f o r e i t c o l l a p s e d . couple also stated that none of Aztecas's employees The had i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e m i g h t be a p r o b l e m w i t h t h e b o o t h s e a t . Isbell and Tracie each testified k n o w l e d g e r e g a r d i n g what m i g h t collapse. Isbell that he or she had no have c a u s e d t h e b o o t h s e a t t o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t b e l i e v e h i s s i z e or weight caused the b o o t h s e a t t o c o l l a p s e ; I s b e l l i s 6 f e e t , 3 inches tall and weighed 265 pounds at the time of the summary-judgment m o t i o n and incident. In opposition evidentiary to Aztecas's submission, Isbell initially submitted only a l e g a l a r g u m e n t , and A z t e c a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e t o t h a t a r g u m e n t . On June 9, 2010, motion I s b e l l f i l e d a "supplemental response" to the f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h he s t a t e d t h a t he had e a r l i e r r e q u e s t e d and b e e n g r a n t e d an a d d i t i o n a l s e v e n d a y s i n w h i c h t o s u b m i t e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment motion. 1 In support of t h a t "supplemental response," Isbell T h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s no o r d e r g r a n t i n g I s b e l l a d d i t i o n a l time to l o c a t e evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n to the summary-judgment m o t i o n . A n o t a t i o n on t h e S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m d a t e d June 2, 2010 (seven days b e f o r e I s b e l l f i l e d h i s June 9, 2010, s u p p l e m e n t a l r e s p o n s e t o t h e 1 4 2100333 submitted t h e a f f i d a v i t o f E l i s a b e t h Ann P r e s l e y , and, s u p p l e m e n t a l r e s p o n s e , he a l l e g e d t h a t he was to had locate a d d i t i o n a l witnesses weakened t h e booth seat court d i d not r u l e on judgment in Isbell's "recent affidavits favor in of attempting t o t e s t i f y t h a t w a t e r damage that A z t e c a s moved t o s t r i k e still in his had c o l l a p s e d under him. affidavit. trial Presley's The t h a t motion. However, i n i t s summary Aztecas, trial submission support of the failed [his] to court noted produce opposition" that admissible to Aztecas's summary-judgment m o t i o n . Isbell filed a postjudgment motion. Eighty-nine days f o l l o w i n g the f i l i n g of t h a t postjudgment motion, I s b e l l filed a "renewed" p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , and he s u b m i t t e d , of that "renewed" m o t i o n , an affidavit I s b e l l ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was the day f o l l o w i n g the filing of i n support another witness. d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w of his "renewed" on postjudgment motion. As an initial matter, we note that the trial summary j u d g m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r court's Presley's summary-judgment m o t i o n ) s t a t e s "Summary Judgment/No A c t i o n . " 5 2100333 affidavit, the only evidence opposition to the timely summary-judgment m o t i o n . c h a l l e n g e d t h a t p a r t of the t r i a l which the submit trial judgment m o t i o n . evidence a p p e a l , we evidence Isbell 2 has in not that Isbell opposition to had failed the to summary- Issues not r a i s e d i n the a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l a r e deemed w a i v e d . 92-93 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . in Isbell c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i n court determined admissible s u b m i t t e d by B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d Thus, f o r the purposes must c o n c l u d e that Isbell of r e s o l v i n g 89, this s u b m i t t e d no a d m i s s i b l e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o A z t e c a s ' s summary-judgment motion. S u b j e c t to c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s not r e l e v a n t here, the affidavit Isbell submitted i n support o f h i s "renewed" p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n c o u l d n o t be p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t b e c a u s e i t was n o t b e f o r e t h a t c o u r t a t t h e t i m e i t c o n s i d e r e d A z t e c a s ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n . M a r d i s v. F o r d M o t o r C r e d i t Co., 642 So. 2d 701, 705 ( A l a . 1994) [T]he t r i a l c o u r t can c o n s i d e r o n l y t h a t m a t e r i a l b e f o r e i t a t t h e t i m e o f s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e m o t i o n ' and ... '[a]ny m a t e r i a l f i l e d a f t e r submission of the motion comes t o o l a t e . ' " ) ( q u o t i n g Guess v. S n y d e r , 378 So. 2d 691, 692 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ) ) ; see a l s o M c C o l l o u g h v. R e g i o n s Bank, 955 So. 2d 405, 409 ( A l a . 2006) ("In o r d e r t o p r e s e n t new e v i d e n c e i n a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e a summary j u d g m e n t , ' " t h e p l a i n t i f f must show c i r c u m s t a n c e s which prevented his presenting e v i d e n c e t o c o u n t e r t h a t o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t . " ' " ( q u o t i n g Moore v. G l o v e r , 501 So. 2d 1187, 1189¬ 90 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n W i l l i s v. I d e a l B a s i c I n d u s . , Inc., 484 So. 2d 444, 445 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) ) . 2 6 2100333 On appeal, entering Isbell argues t h a t the a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r trial court erred in of A z t e c a s because, he contends, the i s s u e of n o t i c e t o A z t e c a s of the a l l e g e d in t h e b o o t h s e a t was a question f o r the defect jury. "'On a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e b u r d e n i s i n i t i a l l y on t h e movant t o make a p r i m a facie s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l fact ( i . e . , t h a t t h e r e i s no d i s p u t e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t ) 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 . ' Attorneys Ins. Mut. o f A l a b a m a , I n c . v. S m i t h , B l o c k e r & L o w t h e r , P.C., 703 So. 2d 866, 868 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; R u l e 56, A l a . R. C i v . P. See M c C l e n d o n v. M o u n t a i n Top I n d o o r F l e a M a r k e t , I n c . , 601 So. 2d 957, 958 ( A l a . 1992) . Thus, ' [ t ] h e b u r d e n t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t w i l l e s t a b l i s h 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 does n o t s h i f t t o t h e nonmovant u n l e s s t h e movant [ f i r s t ] s a t i s f i e s i t s burden.' O ' B a r r v. O b e r l a n d e r , 679 So. 2d 261, 263 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996)." Denmark v. (Ala. Mercantile 2002). On Stores appeal, Co., Isbell, 844 So. 2d i n essence, 1189, 1192-93 contends that A z t e c a s d i d n o t meet i t s b u r d e n u n d e r t h e a p p l i c a b l e summaryjudgment s t a n d a r d so that actual Aztecas alleged defect With c o u r t has had that s h i f t e d to regard to the or burden of p r e s e n t i n g constructive knowledge evidence of the him. premises-liability cases, our supreme stated: "'A s t o r e owner's d u t y i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d . That duty i s "to e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e care t o p r o v i d e 7 2100333 and m a i n t a i n r e a s o n a b l y s a f e p r e m i s e s f o r t h e use o f h i s c u s t o m e r s . " Maddox v. K - M a r t C o r p . , 565 So. 2d 14, 16 (Ala. 1990) . Consequently, injured "plaintiffs must prove that the injury was p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d by t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f [the s t o r e owner] o r one o f i t s s e r v a n t s o r e m p l o y e e s . Actual or c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of the presence of the substance [or instrumentality that caused the i n j u r y ] must be p r o v e n b e f o r e [the s t o r e owner] can be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n j u r y . " Id.'" Dolgencorp, v. Hall, Denmark (quoting Inc. 890 So. v. Mercantile 2d 98, Stores 100 Co., (Ala. 844 2003) So. 2d at 1192). In t h i s case, there that Aztecas had actual i s no a d m i s s i b l e or constructive d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n of the booth seat Isbell. However, circumstances. 3d 495 (Ala. exceptions such knowledge I n Edwards v. Civ. exist App. to the evidence knowledge of that collapsed is not Intergraph 2008), indicating this court requirement that beneath required Services the in a l l Co., 4 that plaintiff must or c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of a dangerous or d e f e c t i v e Those e x c e p t i o n s So. explained p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t a b u s i n e s s owner had of the p r o p e r t y . the i n c l u d e when t h e actual condition business owner " a f f i r m a t i v e l y c r e a t e d " t h e d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n , s u c h as by p l a c i n g i t e m s i n an a i s l e , to perform reasonable o r when t h e b u s i n e s s owner inspections 8 or maintenance of fails the 2100333 premises to discover Edwards v . I n t e r g r a p h In contends requirement fell Restaurant, sets that constructive seat. Servs. forth In that on a p p e a l , Isbell an applicable that exception Aztecas of the a l l e g e d defect relies on to the had a c t u a l o r i n the booth c a s e , Mims was i n j u r e d when s h e t r i p p e d a n d o v e r a t h r e s h o l d i n t h e doorway t o J a c k ' s witness condition. 565 So. 2d 609 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , w h i c h he d e m o n s t r a t e knowledge the defective Co., 4 So. 3d a t 503. a s s e r t i n g h i s argument Mims v. J a c k ' s he or prevent t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e Mims f e l l , restaurant. A the threshold was l o o s e a n d some s c r e w s t h a t were s u p p o s e d t o h o l d i t t o t h e floor were m i s s i n g . judgment reversed t h e r e was " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h a j u r y c o u l d find the defect injuries." supreme liability of the restaurant, a summary that a defect i n favor court holding that entered Our supreme e x i s t e d i n t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t h e door and t h a t caused Ms. Mims to t r i p , 565 So. 2d a t 610. court explained in reaching In reaching the standard a c t i o n s s u c h as t h i s thereby causing i t s h o l d i n g , our governing one, as w e l l as i t s premisesreasoning i t s holding: "Ms. Mims was a defendant. Therefore, business invitee i t owed h e r a 9 her of the duty t o 2100333 e x e r c i s e o r d i n a r y and r e a s o n a b l e c a r e i n p r o v i d i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g r e a s o n a b l y s a f e p r e m i s e s f o r h e r . Cox v . W e s t e r n S u p e r m a r k e t s , I n c . , 557 So. 2d 831 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . The q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e t h r e s h o l d , i f i t was d e f e c t i v e , h a d b e e n d e f e c t i v e f o r s u c h a p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t J a c k ' s s h o u l d have d i s c o v e r e d the d e f e c t , was f o r t h e j u r y . "The f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e s h o u l d be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e f a c t s i n a c a s e where a p l a i n t i f f s l i p s a n d f a l l s on a s l i c k s p o t on a f l o o r c a u s e d b y f o o d o r another substance. I n one o f t h o s e s l i p a n d f a l l c a s e s , a p l a i n t i f f n o t o n l y must make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t h e r f a l l was c a u s e d b y a d e f e c t o r i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y (a s u b s t a n c e c a u s i n g a s u r f a c e t o be s l i c k ) l o c a t e d on t h e p r e m i s e s , b u t s h e must a l s o p r e s e n t prima f a c i e evidence t h a t t h e defendant had or s h o u l d have had n o t i c e of the defect or i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y a t t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t . Massey v. A l l i e d P r o d u c t s Co., 523 So. 2d 397 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; T i c e v . T i c e , 361 So. 2d 1051 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n c a s e s where t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t i s a part of the premises (in this case, a loose t h r e s h o l d i n t h e main e n t r a n c e o f a r e s t a u r a n t ) , once a p l a i n t i f f h a s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t a d e f e c t i n a p a r t o f t h e p r e m i s e s h a s c a u s e d an i n j u r y , then t h e q u e s t i o n whether t h e defendant had a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e d e f e c t w i l l go to t h e j u r y , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h e p l a i n t i f f makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d o r s h o u l d have h a d n o t i c e o f t h e d e f e c t a t t h e t i m e of the accident. F o r example, i n Winn-Dixie Montgomery, I n c . v. Weeks, 504 So. 2d 1210 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , a m o t h e r was g o i n g t h r o u g h a g r o c e r y s t o r e pushing a shopping c a r t , i n w h i c h h e r s o n was sitting. The o n l y u n u s u a l t h i n g she n o t i c e d a b o u t the c a r t was t h a t t h e w h e e l s made a l o u d n o i s e a n d were w o b b l y . W h i l e s h e l e f t t h e c a r t f o r a moment, the c h i l d l e a n e d o v e r t o r e a c h f o r candy i n a d i s p l a y r a c k , a n d , as he d i d s o , t h e c a r t t i l t e d o v e r a n d h i s l e f t c h e e k was i m p a l e d on an a l l e g e d l y b r o k e n w i r e t h a t was s t i c k i n g up on t h e d i s p l a y 10 2100333 rack. The d e f e n d a n t s , a p p e a l i n g from a judgment b a s e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , a r g u e d t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e y had c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of the d e f e c t . This Court a f f i r m e d , h o l d i n g t h a t the q u e s t i o n whether the g r o c e r y s t o r e had c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t was f o r the j u r y . W i n n - D i x i e Montgomery, I n c . v. Weeks, 504 So. 2d a t 1211. " I n b o t h t h i s c a s e and i n Weeks, t h e a l l e g e d defect or i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y was a part of the premises. Unlike a s p i l l e d substance, a d e f e c t i v e t h r e s h o l d or a c a r t or a d i s p l a y rack i s a f i x t u r e t h a t r e q u i r e s o r d i n a r y and r e a s o n a b l e m a i n t e n a n c e i n order to provide safe premises f o r the store's c u s t o m e r s . B e c a u s e i t was t h e m a i n e n t r a n c e o f t h e r e s t a u r a n t , we f i n d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r J a c k ' s s h o u l d have known t h a t t h e t h r e s h o l d was defective was a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y . " 565 So. 2d a t 610-11 We note paragraph of Restaurant, the that this the of court as "the narrowing that opinion k n o w l e d g e was defect is part Servs. Co., Services defendant Co., had 4 interpreted portion constructive a has above-quoted supra, portion (emphasis added). So. of the 3d at because failed specifying premises. 505. properly that Jack's actual when t h e of or alleged v. Intergraph Edwards v. Intergraph not inspect alleged or that the maintain the a l l e g e d l y d e f e c t i v e p o r t i o n of the p r e m i s e s , t h i s 11 v. Edwards In had Mims second apparent broadness" a jury question Edwards to of the court held 2100333 that "neither invitee of the must p r e s e n t ... exceptions to s u b s t a n t i a l evidence the rule that the owner knew o r s h o u l d have known o f t h e d a n g e r o u s o r condition applies." 4 So. 3d a t 505. that premises defective In t h a t c a s e , however, t h i s c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t Edwards had p r o c e e d e d u n d e r t h e theory that Intergraph a design Servs. Co., defect t e s t i m o n y makes i t c l e a r upon I n t e r g r a p h premises there that i s no recovery for a 3d a t 504 t h a t he 'design allegedly sought to his Edwards impose liability i n the p o r t i o n of injury). i n d i c a t i o n t h a t I s b e l l has court supreme c o u r t . In this case, for i s b o u n d by the p r e c e d e n t e s t a b l i s h e d by our § 12-3-16, A l a . Code 1975 holdings ("The decisions of and decisions of the c o u r t s of appeals . . . . " ) ; F a r m e r s I n s . E x c h . v. R a i n e , So. App. court's 832, 835 holding (Ala. Civ. i n Mims v. 2004). Given our u n d e r h i m was we had actual or 12 constructive must collapsed a f i x t u r e o r "a p a r t o f t h e p r e m i s e s , " t h e Aztecas 905 supreme Jack's Restaurant, supra, agree w i t h I s b e l l t h a t , because the booth seat t h a t whether the limited his claim Supreme C o u r t s h a l l g o v e r n t h e 2d v. ("Edwards's d e p o s i t i o n defect'" caused injury. sole i n s u c h a manner. This the caused h i s 4 So. an notice of issue the 2100333 alleged defect regardless i n the booth [of the f a c t seat that Isbell should "go failed to the jury, t o make] a prima f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t [ A z t e c a s ] h a d o r s h o u l d have h a d n o t i c e o f the d e f e c t a t the time For t h a t reason, Aztecas of the accident." 565 So. 2d a t 610. we r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman, Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , without 13 writing.

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.