Duncan Miller, a minor, by and through Edward Miller v. Liberty Park Joint Venture, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/26/2011 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100619 Duncan M i l l e r , a minor, by and through Edward M i l l e r v. L i b e r t y Park J o i n t Venture, LLC Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900904) THOMAS, J u d g e . Edward Miller ("Miller"), ("Duncan"), a m i n o r , a p p e a l s on b e h a l f f r o m a summary o f Duncan Miller judgment e n t e r e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t i n f a v o r o f L i b e r t y P a r k Joint Venture, LLC ("Liberty P a r k " ) , i na p r e m i s e s - l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n . 2100619 Miller's he c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t Duncan had b e e n i n j u r e d when s l i p p e d on a c l a y - s u r f a c e d t e n n i s c o u r t a t t h e O l d C l u b , w h i c h i s owned by s l i d under the court was basis because The trial ground t h a t there upon w h i c h could had clay-surfaced tennis court the to gap Park present was that fence a defective there was no t h a t L i b e r t y P a r k was as a m a t t e r o f l a w . We Facts S e p t e m b e r 7, be held substantial between the court found m a t e r i a l f a c t and Liberty failed that On elbow the Miller trial and i t s summary j u d g m e n t on demonstrating the h i s arm the t e n n i s c o u r t . fence surrounding entered no L i b e r t y P a r k , and Overton liable evidence frame and the condition; genuine entitled thus, issue to of judgment agree. and Procedural 2008, w h i l e History playing i n a United States T e n n i s A s s o c i a t i o n t o u r n a m e n t a t t h e O l d O v e r t o n C l u b , Duncan was injured. surfaced the corner his left suffer ulna The tennis injury court while of the c o u r t . arm occurred attempting During the went u n d e r n e a t h t h e a d i s l o c a t i o n / f r a c t u r e of collateral ligament, when he on a clay- a forehand shot f a l l , Duncan s l i p p e d f e n c e frame c a u s i n g him his a requiring 2 fell left e l b o w and surgery for repair near and to torn and 2100619 placement of p i n s . Miller filed a complaint i n the trial c o u r t a l l e g i n g n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s b a s e d on a premises-liability t h e o r y on M a r c h 19, 2 0 1 0 . complaint, named O l d O v e r t o n parties On April In his original O l d Overton Club, liability 7, Miller 2010, amended Inc., filed h i s complaint Liberty Park for fictitiously number Liberty Park answered the named conducted discovery. filed a motion trial court subsequently amended On A p r i l t o d i s m i s s O l d Overton and complaint, defenses. 13, 2010, M i l l e r Club, I n c . , which the g r a n t e d on A p r i l On J u l y 3 0 , 2010, M i l l e r time. an defendant d e n y i n g l i a b i l i t y a n d a s s e r t i n g numerous a f f i r m a t i v e The p a r t i e s named on M a r c h 26, 2010. substituted 29. Miller C l u b , I n c . , a n d numerous f i c t i t i o u s l y as d e f e n d a n t s . answer d e n y i n g 1 16, 2010. amended h i s c o m p l a i n t I n t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t , M i l l e r a d d e d a second Brasfield In a d d i t i o n to the p r e m i s e s - l i a b i l i t y theory at issue, M i l l e r a l l e g e d i n an amended c o m p l a i n t t h a t L i b e r t y P a r k h a d been n e g l i g e n t i n i t s d e s i g n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , and c r e a t i o n o f t h e f e n c e a r o u n d t h e t e n n i s c o u r t , w h i c h he a s s e r t e d was a dangerous c o n d i t i o n . However, 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 L i b e r t y P a r k on t h i s c l a i m , a n d M i l l e r d i d n o t a r g u e t h i s i s s u e on a p p e a l . Thus, we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t on t h e n e g l i g e n t - d e s i g n c l a i m on a p p e a l . See P a r d u e v . P o t t e r , 632 So. 2d 470, 473 ( A l a . 1994) ( " I s s u e s n o t a r g u e d i n t h e appellant's b r i e f are waived."). 1 3 2100619 & G o r r i e , I n c . ( " B r a s f i e l d & G o r r i e " ) , and W i l l i a m s Architects, P.C. ("Williams Blackstock"), as Blackstock defendants. B r a s f i e l d & G o r r i e and W i l l i a m s B l a c k s t o c k a n s w e r e d t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t , defenses. 2 Liberty November d e n y i n g l i a b i l i t y and a s s e r t i n g a f f i r m a t i v e Park f i l e d 19, 2010. a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t I n i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary on judgment, L i b e r t y P a r k a r g u e d t h a t t h e gap b e t w e e n t h e f e n c e f r a m e a n d the clay-surfaced dangerous d e f e c t . Liberty the tennis court not an unreasonably i n a supporting affidavit, P a r k h i g h l i g h t e d t h e f a c t t h a t no i n j u r y similar to one i n t h i s Specifically, was case had o c c u r r e d i n the 13^ years since the f e n c e h a d b e e n i n s t a l l e d on t h e p r e m i s e s d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t the c o u r t had been used c o n t i n u o u s l y Miller filed an o p p o s i t i o n f o r that entire period. t o L i b e r t y Park's motion for a On S e p t e m b e r 30, 2010, W i l l i a m s B l a c k s t o c k f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t s t a t i n g t h a t a l l t h e a l l e g e d c l a i m s against i t were barred by t h e a p p l i c a b l e statute of limitations. B r a s f i e l d & G o r r i e f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 15, 2010, s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t i t were b a r r e d b y t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d s e p a r a t e summary j u d g m e n t s i n f a v o r o f b o t h W i l l i a m s B l a c k s t o c k and B r a s f i e l d & G o r r i e and c e r t i f i e d b o t h j u d g m e n t s as f i n a l 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. M i l l e r h a s n o t a p p e a l e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t s e n t e r e d i n favor of W i l l i a m s B l a c k s t o c k or B r a s f i e l d & G o r r i e . 2 4 2100619 summary Miller j u d g m e n t on December 13, 2010. argued business that owner's a claim premises In h i s o p p o s i t i o n , of a defect coupled with to a fixture a claim on a that the p r e m i s e s owner h a d f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y i n s p e c t o r m a i n t a i n t h e a l l e g e d l y defective condition r a i s e d questions for a jury to resolve, also p u r s u a n t t o Alabama c a s e l a w . Miller attached h i s own a f f i d a v i t a n d L i b e r t y P a r k s ' s m a i n t e n a n c e i n v o i c e s f o r t h e p e r i o d when Duncan's a c c i d e n t Liberty motion Park for a responded summary attached an a f f i d a v i t products listed 2011, the t r i a l occurred. to Miller's judgment on January explaining the intended on t h e m a i n t e n a n c e r e c o r d s . court held a hearing regarding p e n d i n g m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . hearing, of opposition the t r i a l court entered L i b e r t y P a r k on F e b r u a r y 11, toi t s 2011, and usage of the On J a n u a r y 14, L i b e r t y Park's A f t e r conducting the a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r 3, 2 0 1 1 . I n i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t L i b e r t y Park had s h i f t e d t h e burden t o M i l l e r t o present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence demonstrating that the gap b e t w e e n t h e f e n c e frame a n d t h e c l a y - s u r f a c e d t e n n i s was an unreasonably f a i l e d t o present dangerous Miller had s u b s t a n t i a l evidence demonstrating that this 5 defect and t h a t court 2100619 gap was i n d e e d a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n . Accordingly, the t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d , t h e r e was no g e n u i n e issue of material and Liberty P a r k was e n t i t l e d Miller filed fact t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law. trial a motion to alter, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 4, 2 0 1 1 . m o t i o n was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . to t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . this the of amend, or vacate the The postjudgment M i l l e r timely appealed The a p p e a l was t r a n s f e r r e d t o c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) . Because t r i a l c o u r t h a d a l r e a d y e n t e r e d summary j u d g m e n t s i n favor B r a s f i e l d & G o r r i e and W i l l i a m s B l a c k s t o c k , see supra note 2, t h e summary j u d g m e n t as t o M i l l e r ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t L i b e r t y P a r k was a f i n a l judgment. "In r e v i e w i n g t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , 'we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d as the t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e [ i t ] made o u t 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 u s s e y v . John Deere Co., 531 So. 2d 860, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d w h e t h e r t h e movant was ' e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' W r i g h t v . W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e movant 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 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 f a c t , t h e burden shifts to t h e nonmovant to present s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g s u c h an i s s u e . 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 , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . E v i d e n c e i s ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' i f i t i s o f 'such w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can 6 2100619 r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d . ' W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d a t 543 ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Our r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r s u b j e c t t o t h e c a v e a t t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w the record i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to the nonmovant and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e doubts a g a i n s t t h e movant. Wilma C o r p . v. F l e m i n g Foods o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 613 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; B a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412, 413 ( A l a . 1990)." Hobson v. (Ala. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., So. 2d 341, 344 erred in 1997). On appeal, Miller argues t h a t the e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r negligence alleged defect i n s p e c t and and maintain fixture are Alabama law. whether of L i b e r t y Liberty for a Specifically, and Park P a r k on his theory because, n o t i c e of failed to the properly the t e n n i s c o u r t c o n t a i n i n g a d e f e c t i v e questions 1990), court whether L i b e r t y P a r k had c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Mims v. Intergraph trial c l a i m b a s e d on a p r e m i s e s - l i a b i l i t y he s a y s , t h e q u e s t i o n s (Ala. 690 this S e r v i c e s Co., jury Miller Jack's court's 4 So. are a p p l i c a b l e to the present to resolve, argues Restaurant, reasoning 3d 495 c a s e and, 565 in our thus, to supreme So. 2d 609 Edwards v. ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t . 7 that pursuant t h a t the 2008), trial 2100619 It to an party i s well settled that injured party in relation " [ t ] h e d u t y owed by depends upon t h e to the status landowner's of land, a landowner the i.e., i n j u r e d p a r t y a t r e s p a s s e r , a l i c e n s e e , o r an i n v i t e e . " Cable, Inc. omitted). v. Davis, Although 58 So. 3d 93, L i b e r t y Park 98 (Ala. argued is Galaxy that Duncan was Duncan the summary-judgment m o t i o n , n o t i n g t h a t t h e d u t y owed t o an i n v i t e e i s h i g h e r t h e d u t y owed t o a l i c e n s e e . I d . the have b e e n an a i n v i t e e of L i b e r t y Park a t the time of the i n j u r y f o r the purpose of a d d r e s s i n g of r e v i e w i n g the 2010)(footnote l i c e n s e e and n o t an i n v i t e e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t o have b e e n a b u s i n e s s injured Accordingly, liability too f o r the purpose invitee. The summary j u d g m e n t , we than consider o f a p r e m i s e s owner t o an Duncan t o invitee is well established. "'A l a n d o w n e r owes an i n v i t e e t h e l e g a l d u t y " t o e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e and d i l i g e n c e t o keep t h e premises i n a r e a s o n a b l y safe c o n d i t i o n f o r the uses c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e i n v i t a t i o n , and t o warn t h e i n v i t e e o f known d a n g e r s , o r d a n g e r s t h a t o u g h t t o have b e e n known, and of which the invitee was i g n o r a n t . " Lamson & S e s s i o n s B o l t Co. v. M c C a r t y , 234 A l a . 60, a t 62, 173 So. 388 (1937).'" 8 2100619 E r v i n v. E x c e l P r o p s . , I n c . , 831 So. 2d 38, 41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) 825 (quoting Shelton v. B o s t o n F i n . , I n c . , 638 So. 2d 824, ( A l a .1994)). However, " ' [ t ] h e owner o f a p r e m i s e s ... i s n o t an i n s u r e r o f t h e s a f e t y o f h i s i n v i t e e s ... , a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e o f r e s i p s a l o q u i t u r i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e . T h e r e i s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f n e g l i g e n c e w h i c h a r i s e s f r o m t h e mere f a c t o f an i n j u r y t o an i n v i t e e . ' T i c e v. T i c e , 361 So. 2d 1051, 1052 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . I n o r d e r t o overcome a d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d summary-judgment motion, the p l a i n t i f f bears the burden of p r e s e n t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e as t o e a c h d i s p u t e d e l e m e n t o f [ h i s ] c l a i m . See Ex p a r t e A t m o r e Community Hosp., 719 So. 2d 1190 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; Mann v. Bank o f T a l l a s s e e , 694 So. 2d 1375 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . " Ex p a r t e (Ala. Harold L. M a r t i n Distrib. Co., 769 So. 2d 313, 314 2000). "Generally, an i n v i t e e must show not only that he was i n j u r e d as t h e r e s u l t o f a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n on t h e owner's p r e m i s e s , b u t a l s o t h a t t h e owner knew o r s h o u l d h a v e known o f t h e d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n . " E d w a r d s , 4 So. 3d a t 502. as Miller appeal, required argued a showing at circumstances. the i n the t r i a l court and as he However, argues on of a c t u a l or c o n s t r u c t i v e knowledge i s not summary-judgment stage in some S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n Mims t h e supreme c o u r t as f o l l o w s : 9 special stated 2100619 " [ 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 p a r t o f the premises ( i n t h i s case, a loose t h r e s h o l d i n the m a i n 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 has 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 has c a u s e d an i n j u r y , t h e n t h e question whether the defendant had actual or 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 t o t h e j u r y , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f makes a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t the d e f e n d a n t had or 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 o f t h e accident." 565 So. 2d a t 610; see a l s o I s b e l l v. A z t e c a s M e x i c a n [Ms. 2100333, J u n e 30, 2011] App. 2011) a (reversing restaurant on constructive the So. summary ground that 3d , judgment the (Ala. Civ. i n favor restaurant's k n o w l e d g e o f an a l l e g e d d e f e c t Grill, of actual i n a booth c o l l a p s e d u n d e r r e s t a u r a n t p a t r o n was a q u e s t i o n the or that for a jury to resolve). Additionally, exception present t o the this court general substantial noted in requirement evidence at the Edwards that that a plaintiff summary-judgment an must stage d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t a p r e m i s e s owner h a d a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e notice owner of a dangerous has failed maintenance defective of to the condition." condition perform premises 4 So. applies a to 3d a t 10 when reasonable discover 503. "the premises inspection and remedy or the 2100619 In t h i s case, the t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t M i l l e r f a i l e d present frame evidence and i n d i c a t i n g that clay-surfaced dangerous tennis the gap court between was an the to fence unreasonably defect. Specifically, the trial court's judgment s t a t e s : "In i t s s u b m i s s i o n s , [ L i b e r t y Park] s h i f t e d the burden to [Miller] t o show t h a t t h e condition c a u s i n g [Duncan's] i n j u r y was d a n g e r o u s . Here t h e [ c ] o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ M i l l e r ] p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r e m i s e s were ' d a n g e r o u s . ' The s u b m i s s i o n s show t h a t t h e c o u r t s and t h e f e n c e had b e e n i n p l a c e for o v e r t h i r t e e n y e a r s and t h a t no one had b e e n i n j u r e d on i t b e f o r e . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e , e i t h e r t h r o u g h e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y o r o t h e r w i s e , t o show t h a t t h e f e n c e v i o l a t e d some s t a n d a r d o f c a r e . "Here [ M i l l e r ] has f a i l e d t o s u b m i t any e v i d e n c e that the Old O v e r t o n p r e m i s e s were n o t in a reasonably safe condition. T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t L i b e r t y P a r k knew o r s h o u l d have known o f any d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n o f w h i c h i t s h o u l d have w a r n e d [Duncan]. "The mere f a c t t h a t an unfortunate injury o c c u r r e d , does n o t g i v e r i s e t o an i n f e r e n c e t h a t a d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n e x i s t e d . Ex p a r t e H a r o l d L. M a r t i n D i s t r i b . Co., 769 So. 2d 13 ( A l a . 2000) . T h e r e i s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f n e g l i g e n c e w h i c h a r i s e s f r o m t h e mere f a c t o f an i n j u r y t o an i n v i t e e . " Liberty appropriate f e n c e was the Park contends because the that summary judgment judgment i n c l u d e d a f i n d i n g t h a t n o t an u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s d e f e c t and, exceptions noted i n Mims 11 and Edwards are thus, was the that inapplicable 2100619 because those cases are c o n t i n g e n t upon a f i n d i n g t h a t premises contained a d e f e c t i v e Initially, Edwards, we upon contention note which that that condition. the Miller language heavily a plaintiff We the agree. of both and supports relies, Mims the i n a premises-liability action must p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n o f w h i c h i t c o m p l a i n s is defective. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Mims s t a t e s : " [ O ] n c e a p l a i n t i f f has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g p r e m i s e s has that a defect i n a p a r t of the c a u s e d an i n j u r y , t h e n t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t had a c t u a l or 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 go to the jury." 565 So. 2d at 610 A d d i t i o n a l l y , Edwards s t a t e s : " G e n e r a l l y , not only that condition on he the was injured as the (emphasis also (emphasis added). a that defective the owner condition." 4 So. Therefore, although these cases knew o r s h o u l d have known o f t h e d e f e c t i v e 3d a t 502 added). an i n v i t e e must show r e s u l t of owner's p r e m i s e s , b u t will present e x c e p t i o n s to the g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t a p l a i n t i f f must present of evidence of actual or constructive knowledge a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n a t t h e summary-judgment s t a g e i n s p e c i f i c instances, these cases do not 12 relieve a plaintiff of the 2100619 requirement to present t h e summary-judgment Moreover, with evidence of a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n at stage. regard p r e m i s e s - l i a b i l i t y cases, to this defective c o u r t has conditions stated: " I n A l a b a m a , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r an e l e v a t i o n irregularity i n a sidewalk, curb, or t h r e s h o l d c o n s t i t u t e s an u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n o r d e f e c t h a s , so f a r as we a r e a b l e t o t e l l , a l w a y s b e e n h e l d t o be an i s s u e o f f a c t when t h e p l a i n t i f f has presented evidence indicating that the i r r e g u l a r i t y c r e a t e s a d a n g e r . See, e.g., Stephens v. C i t y o f Montgomery, 575 So. 2d 1095 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; Mann v. S m i t h , 561 So. 2d 1112 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; Bogue v. R & M G r o c e r y , 553 So. 2d 545 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; W a i t s v. Crown Dodge C h r y s l e r - P l y m o u t h , I n c . , [770] So. 2d [618] ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; W i l l i a m s v. H a r o l d L. M a r t i n D i s t r i b . Co., I n c . , [769] So. 2d [316] ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; Woodward v. H e a l t h C a r e A u t h . o f t h e C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 727 So. 2d 814 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 8 ) . " I n S t e p h e n s , t h e supreme c o u r t r e v e r s e d a summary j u d g m e n t f o r t h e C i t y i n a t r i p - a n d - f a l l c a s e , h o l d i n g t h a t e v i d e n c e o f an uneven s i d e w a l k , i n which 'one p o r t i o n of the s i d e w a l k ... was a p p r o x i m a t e l y one i n c h h i g h e r t h a n a n o t h e r p o r t i o n , ' 575 So. 2d a t 1096, was e v i d e n c e o f a d e f e c t i n t h e s i d e w a l k and c r e a t e d '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 , s u i t a b l e f o r j u r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . ' I d . a t 1097. I n Mann, t h e supreme c o u r t a l s o r e v e r s e d a summary judgment i n f a v o r of the premises owner. The p l a i n t i f f ' s e x p e r t , an e n g i n e e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t e p s l e a d i n g i n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s b u s i n e s s were d e f e c t i v e b e c a u s e ' [ t ] h e t o p s t e p was n o t l e v e l w i t h t h e d o o r jamb, b u t was s l i g h t l y b e l o w t h e jamb so t h a t someone e n t e r i n g t h e s t o r e had t o s t e p f r o m t h e t o p s t e p up t o e n t e r t h e s t o r e . ' 561 So. 2d a t 1114. The supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s had 13 in 2100619 ' e s t a b l i s h e d evidence from which a j u r y c o u l d t h a t a d e f e c t e x i s t e d i n the s t e p s . ' I d . find " I n Bogue, t h e supreme c o u r t r e v e r s e d a summary judgment f o r the p r i v a t e premises owner i n a slip-and-fall case. I t h e l d t h a t the plaintiff's e x p e r t , a c i v i l e n g i n e e r , had p r e s e n t e d sufficient evidence f o r a j u r y to determine whether the p l a i n t i f f ' s f a l l was c a u s e d by a d e f e c t i n t h e p r e m i s e s . The e n g i n e e r had t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a l l was c a u s e d by a d r o p i n e l e v a t i o n f r o m t h e doorway of the s t o r e t o the p a r k i n g l o t . " I n W a i t s , t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t an a r c h i t e c t ' s t e s t i m o n y - - t h a t the r a i s e d t h r e s h o l d over which the p l a i n t i f f t r i p p e d a t an a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r ' s s e r v i c e d e p a r t m e n t was u n s a f e and d a n g e r o u s f o r c u s t o m e r s - ¬ p r e s e n t e d '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 ... as t o w h e t h e r a d e f e c t e x i s t e d . ' [770] So. 2d a t [ 6 2 0 ] . ... I n Woodward, a v i s i t o r t o a h o s p i t a l e m e r g e n c y room t r i p p e d and f e l l on a c u r b i n t h e h o s p i t a l ' s p a r k i n g g a r a g e . The p l a i n t i f f ' s e x p e r t testified t h a t a ' l e v e l change,' combined w i t h the n i g h t t i m e lighting conditions in the parking garage, ' c r e a t e [ d ] a h a z a r d f o r p e r s o n s t r a v e r s i n g on f o o t f r o m t h e ... p a r k i n g g a r a g e t o t h e e m e r g e n c y room,' 727 So. 2d a t 817. The h o s p i t a l d i d n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e p l a c e where t h e p l a i n t i f f fell was not a d a n g e r o u s d e f e c t ; i t a r g u e d o n l y t h a t t h e d e f e c t was open and o b v i o u s . T h i s c o u r t assumed t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a d e f e c t and f r a m e d t h e i s s u e i n t e r m s o f w h e t h e r t h e d e f e c t was open and o b v i o u s , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e e x p e r t ' s t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d a j u r y q u e s t i o n as [ t o ] w h e t h e r t h e d e f e c t was open and o b v i o u s . " Howard v. A n d y ' s S t o r e f o r Men, Civ. App. presenting premises, 2000). evidence such as Howard 757 gap 2d 1208, illustrates indicating the So. that between 14 an the the 1211-12 ( A l a . necessity irregularity fence frame of on the and the 2100619 c l a y - s u r f a c e d t e n n i s court i n t h i s case, i s d e f e c t i v e i n order to create In a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l this case, the t r i a l court fact. found that Liberty Park 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 t h e gap b e t w e e n t h e f e n c e f r a m i n g and t h e c l a y - s u r f a c e d or u n r e a s o n a b l y dangerous. 3 tennis c o u r t was n o t d e f e c t i v e Therefore, the burden s h i f t e d t o M i l l e r t o present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence demonstrating that the I n i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , L i b e r t y P a r k a r g u e d t h a t t h e gap b e t w e e n t h e f e n c e frame a n d c l a y - s u r f a c e d t e n n i s c o u r t i s n o t an u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s d e f e c t b e c a u s e , i n t h e 13^ y e a r s s i n c e t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t e n n i s c o u r t s and t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of the f e n c i n g , not a s i n g l e i n j u r y had o c c u r r e d i n v o l v i n g a t e n n i s p l a y e r b e i n g h u r t when h i s o r h e r arm was caught under t h e f e n c i n g , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t s were c o n s t a n t l y u s e d d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . See R o b i n s o n v . G a n t t , 673 So. 2d 441 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) ( a f f i r m i n g summary j u d g m e n t f o r p r e m i s e s owner when t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o produce s u b s t a n t i a l evidence demonstrating t h a t the premises owner knew o r h a d r e a s o n t o know t h a t t h e r e was a d a n g e r p o s e d by s n a k e s n e a r t h e a p a r t m e n t - c o m p l e x p o o l when no one h a d e v e r b e e n b i t t e n b y a s n a k e i n t h e p o o l a r e a b e f o r e ) ; B u t l e r v. AAA W a r e h o u s i n g & M o v i n g Co., 686 So. 2d 291 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) ( a f f i r m i n g summary j u d g m e n t f o r company t h a t h a d p r e s e n t e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g that reviewing stand, which p l a i n t i f f c l a i m e d was u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s as e r e c t e d , h a d b e e n s e t up i n t h e same manner w i t h t h e a l l e g e d l y d a n g e r o u s 5-inch v e r t i c a l gaps b e t w e e n l e v e l s f o r 25 y e a r s w i t h o u t i n j u r y t o a p a r a d e p a t r o n ) ; a n d E d w a r d s , s u p r a ( a f f i r m i n g summary j u d g m e n t on d e s i g n - d e f e c t c l a i m when t h e a l l e g e d l y d e f e c t i v e f l o o r i n g had b e e n u s e d f o r o v e r 14 y e a r s w i t h o u t i n j u r y ) . L i b e r t y P a r k a l s o s u b m i t t e d t h e a f f i d a v i t o f Samuel G. L o w r e y I I I , t h e p r o j e c t manager f o r L i b e r t y P a r k , t o f u r t h e r s u p p o r t i t s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e f e n c i n g was n o t a d e f e c t o f t h e p r e m i s e s . 3 15 2100619 gap was indeed premises. an unreasonably However, the trial dangerous court clearly defect on stated the in i t s j u d g m e n t t h a t M i l l e r had p r e s e n t e d no s u c h e v i d e n c e , l e t a l o n e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , t h a t the Further, on appeal, c o n d i t i o n was Miller also f a i l s dangerous. to argue t h a t gap b e t w e e n t h e f e n c e frame and t h e c l a y - s u r f a c e d t e n n i s is a defective questions condition; whether instead, Liberty Park he had argues notice only of court that the the alleged d e f e c t and w h e t h e r L i b e r t y P a r k f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y i n s p e c t maintain fixture the are tennis court questions Alabama law. containing for a jury Thus, M i l l e r has to 1994) ("Issues resolve, argued in the So. pursuant a r g u m e n t as t o 2d 470, appellant's and defective no d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n P a r d u e v. P o t t e r , 632 not allegedly w a i v e d any t r i a l c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r e was t h e p r e m i s e s . See an the 473 to the on (Ala. brief are waived."). Accordingly, in entering negligence therefore we conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r c l a i m b a s e d on a t h e o r y a f f i r m the trial court's AFFIRMED. 16 o f L i b e r t y P a r k on of p r e m i s e s l i a b i l i t y ; judgment. err the we 2100619 Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 17 Bryan, 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.