Tom Arthur v. Samuel Bolen and Julie Bolen

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 01/08/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1081142 Tom A r t h u r v. Samuel B o l e n and J u l i e Appeal WOODALL, Tom verdict Bolen from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-06-252) Court Justice. Arthur appeals from f o r Samuel B o l e n a judgment and J u l i e Bolen, entered Factual Background jury husband and w i f e , i n the B o l e n s ' p e r s o n a l - i n j u r y a c t i o n a g a i n s t A r t h u r . I. on a We a f f i r m . 1081142 For facts the purposes are not A r t h u r had be in dispute. built. accessed by Bolen was attic opening the damages sought to which and and the of had Bolens his loss the and o f M i c h a e l Van Bolen d i d not hold a professional or in other any testified from t h a t the improper Also, incurred failure the $26,130.82 medical the theories sought punitive and Mrs. Bolen consortium. the Bree. Bolens presented Although Van engineering license Over from Arthur's of the a t t i c Bree the was Illinois, i n Alabama objection, s t a i r w a y had Van Bree resulted installation. during examination, those state. Mr. climbing into an e m p l o y e e o f E n g i n e e r i n g S y s t e m s , I n c . , o f A u r o r a , he could on injuries, of cause, fell sued A r t h u r Mr. that installed. a t t a c h e d a s he was for a house i n the house t h a t ladder separated f o r her trial testimony attic wantonness. compensation following pertinent purchased ladder Arthur the compensation the Bolens an i t was Subsequently, During expert T h e r e was a pull-down negligence appeal, The i n j u r e d when t h e attic. of of t h i s Arthur's expenses trial, in Mr. medical counsel had Bolen testified expenses. t h a t he On had cross- elicited testimony that a l l been p a i d by insurance, including 2 1081142 insurance provided by the Tricare Health Care Program ( " T r i c a r e " ) , w h i c h i s p r o v i d e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of the Defense f o r a c t i v e - d u t y and S t a t e s armed f o r c e s . instructed the reimburse retired members o f Over A r t h u r ' s o b j e c t i o n , the t r i a l jury that T r i c a r e from Mr. any Bolen jury had award expenses i t had paid. $150,000 verdict f o r the Bolens. an the amount Subsequently, trial was denied, and he appeal, Arthur reversing the trial ordering the and trial Bolens' the on court expert, attic the trial matter seeks a new of trial, Bree's [was] jury medical returned motion for a this his motion he have to the from grounds, As not Expert testimony. who of to a new allowed for have a new argues that Bree, the Van cause of the not Court failure charged the of jury reimbursement. Before Bree, judgment ( 2 ) should A. Van trial. should and a d e n i a l of t o t e s t i f y as stairway, Arthur's obligation Discussion court's (1) the court appealed. II. On United Arthur not filed As a Testimony a motion grounds, licensed 3 i n l i m i n e to Arthur argued professional exclude that engineer "Van i n 1081142 Alabama or any other state, offering expert testimony." [was] p r o h i b i t e d by statute from (Emphasis added.) Arthur f u r t h e r argued: " A l a b a m a Code § 3 4 - 1 1 - 1 ( 7 ) s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s that the practice of engineering includes the offering of testimony regarding review of construction to monitor compliance with specifications: "'Any p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e or creative work, the adequate p e r f o r m a n c e of which requires engineering education, training, and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, p h y s i c a l , and e n g i n e e r i n g s c i e n c e s t o s u c h s e r v i c e s o r c r e a t i v e w o r k as c o n s u l t a t i o n , testimony, investigation, evaluation, p l a n n i n g , d e s i g n and d e s i g n c o o r d i n a t i o n o f e n g i n e e r i n g w o r k s and s y s t e m s , p l a n n i n g t h e use of land and water, performing e n g i n e e r i n g s u r v e y s and s t u d i e s ; and the review of c o n s t r u c t i o n or other design products f o r the purpose of monitoring c o m p l i a n c e w i t h d r a w i n g s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s ' " (Some e m p h a s i s omitted.) Following Arthur's case-in-chief, Arthur's proposed testimony colloquy testimony counsel [The Bree. d u r i n g the Specifically, c o u r t ] : What i s y o u r 4 Bolens' renewed h i s o b j e c t i o n to occurred: "Q. o f Van at t r i a l motion? the the following 1081142 "A. [ A r t h u r ' s counsel] : I t i s r e l a t e d to the f a c t Mr. Van Bree i s not licensed to practice engineering i n the S t a t e of Alabama or any other state. The t e s t i m o n y t h a t he i s g o i n g t o o f f e r i s i n l i n e w i t h [ A l a . Code 1975, § 3 4 - 1 1 ¬ 1,] that says i f you are going to offer testimony, f i r s t o f a l l , y o u h a v e g o t t o be licensed. " J u s t r e a d i n g what i s c i t e d i n the m o t i o n [ i n limine] here, 'Any professional service or creative work, the adequate performance of which r e q u i r e s e n g i n e e r i n g education, t r a i n i n g , and e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, testimony, i n v e s t i g a t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n , p l a n n i n g ' -- on down i n here i t r e f e r e n c e s review of c o n s t r u c t i o n or other design products for the purpose of monitoring compliance with drawings and specifications. "Mr. Van Bree i s going to testify whoever installed this stair didn't comply with specifications. So t h a t w o u l d be e n g i n e e r i n g testimony. That's the f i r s t pron[g] of our argument. He i s a l s o g o i n g t o t e s t i f y t h a t t h e fasteners used d i d n ' t have s u f f i c i e n t sheer loading capability. I t i s our p o s i t i o n t h a t w o u l d be e n g i n e e r i n g t e s t i m o n y as w e l l . He i s g o i n g to say i t i s not a s t r u c t u r a l l y related fastener. "That's the g i s t of our argument. He to t e s t i f y about e n g i n e e r i n g m a t t e r s , not l i c e n s e d . He i s g o i n g t o t a l k cause of the f a i l u r e of the s t a i r , s t a t u t e s p e c i f i c a l l y s a y s i f you a r e t a l k a b o u t t h a t , y o u h a v e g o t t o be That's the g i s t of our argument. 5 i s going a n d he i s about the and this going to licensed. 1081142 "[The B o l e n s ' c o u n s e l ] : Judge, t h a t m o t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e [ o p i n i o n i n B o a r d o f W a t e r & Sewer C o m m i s s i o n e r s v . H u n t e r , 956 S o . 2 d 403 ( A l a . 2006)], which i s no l o n g e r r e a l l y g o o d l a w . [ S e c t i o n § 34-11-1] h a s been amended. I f you l o o k a t [§ 3 4 - 1 1 - 1 ( 7 ) a . ] o f t h e n e w l y adopted statute, i t defines p r a c t i c e of engineering. It also specifically struck the word 'testimony' from t h e p r a c t i c e o f e n g i n e e r i n g , so testifying as an e x p e r t , as I r e a d t h e statute, i s not part of the p r a c t i c e of e n g i n e e r i n g as t h e y d e f i n e i t i n t h e s t a t u t e . I t g o e s on f u r t h e r t o s a y i n [ t h a t s u b s e c t i o n ] : "'Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in q u a l i f y i n g a witness to offer expert testimony on the practice of engineering, the court s h a l l consider the evidence of h i s or her e x p e r t i s e whether [the proposed witness] holds [a v a l i d ] A l a b a m a l i c e n s e f o r p r a c t i c e of engineering. Provided ... such q u a l i f i c a t i o n by t h e c o u r t s h a l l not be withheld [from an] otherwise q u a l i f i e d w i t n e s s s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of the f a i l u r e of the [proposed] w i t n e s s t o h o l d [such] v a l i d Alabama l i c e n s e . ' [Quoting § 34-11-1(7)]. " Y o u r H o n o r , i f I may, t h a t s t a t u t e h a d b e e n i n p l a c e a l o n g t i m e , and what happened there was a c a s e o u t o f M o b i l e . ... I t g o t b r o u g h t up [on a p p e a l ] , and what happened [was], everybody started making claims that these p e o p l e come i n t o t h e s t a t e o f A l a b a m a , a n d n o n e of t h e s e p e o p l e were l i c e n s e d e n g i n e e r s i n t h e s t a t e of Alabama w i t h i n the product liability arena, and i t stopped a l l of those product l i a b i l i t y c a s e s f o r q u i t e some t i m e . And then 6 1081142 t h e y were g o i n g b a c k and f o r t h between the L e g i s l a t u r e and a l l o f t h a t u n t i l t h e y r e p e a l e d that part of the statute relating t o -a person i s a l l o w e d to p r o v i d e testimony i n the s t a t e o f A l a b a m a on e n g i n e e r i n g m a t t e r s and t h e y do n o t a c t u a l l y h a v e t o h a v e [an A l a b a m a ] license. "[The c o u r t ] : I remember t h a t G e n e r a l Motors had a problem with b r i n g i n g i n t h e i r design engineer because they weren't licensed in Alabama. I r e m e m b e r e v e r y b o d y was up i n a r m s a b o u t i t . T h a t ' s w h a t I am t r y i n g t o g e t t o the bottom of. "... My f i r s t i n c l i n a t i o n i s i f t h e r e [ i s ] no set o f s t a n d a r d s , you can have t h e guy that d e s i g n e d i t a n d made t h e s t a n d a r d s t e s t i f y . ... I d o n ' t know i f he i s g o i n g t o h a v e t o h a v e a l i c e n s e o r n o t . ... I t h i n k he c a n t e s t i f y t o what the c o n s t r u c t i o n manual says since he w r o t e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n m a n u a l and t h e r e [are] no g o v e r n m e n t a l s t a n d a r d s t o s a y o t h e r w i s e . He w i l l get to t e s t i f y to t h a t . " (Bracketed objection that, language when Van b e c a u s e he was not emphasis Bree Van took to amendments notwithstanding, trial and § Bree licensed the added.) stand Arthur to 34-11-1, should as an not engineer c o u r t o v e r r u l e d t h a t o b j e c t i o n , and 7 testify, Ala. be renewed arguing Code 1975, to testify allowed i n any Van his Bree state. The testified. 1081142 As was the c o l l o q u y i n the t r i a l amended in 2007 in response Commissioners of M o b i l e which a p p l i e d , as w r i t t e n , the for essential. By legislature which Act of portion subsection the Bolens' d. to engineering any shall legal required number t o be or as Arthur subject from opinion from the introductory quoted "The of expert be opinion its legally engineer's license given [ladder] was "Van not 8 to in by an Bree's installed this engineer Thus, § case, 34¬ predecessor. that applicable of work (Emphasis added.) as by subpart practice regarding Alabama may the the states: an 2007, I t a l s o added offering under was paragraph the Alabama statute license Acts in Sewer " p r a c t i c e of "testimony" court. and contends attic in to added the the as t h e Ala. & (Ala. 2006), engineering engineering" jurisdiction." amended considerably Alabama which include which 2 d 403 testimony and (7), performed seal, l i c e n s e d i n any 11-1, (7) proceeding So. 34-11-1(7) Water former v e r s i o n of i n the t r i a l subsection of 956 reference " p r a c t i c e of counsel Board 2007-365, the definition of an No. deleted to v. H u n t e r , d e f i n i n g the r e n d e r i n g of expert engineering," court revealed, § testimony, i n accord differs that the with the 1081142 m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s ... , c o n s t i t u t e s construction monitoring Reply or design compliance brief, at Arthur, such 1(7)d., which, in least at other 9 with construction The statute. for and the the Because review 1071539, (when i s de novo. November issues on 6, Ex parte 2009] appeal So. 3d "'concern be licensed with this the this standard of Educ., ___ , ___ only i n v o l v i n g s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , the 34-11- r e s o l u t i o n of B i r m i n g h a m Bd. ___ § disagree the (Ala. questions standard to in to i s s u e i s a m a t t e r of mere s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , of of According Bree Bolens of purpose provision Van review specifications.'" 34-11-1(7)). required state. the § triggered contends, one of drawings (quoting testimony he products 'the [Ms. 2009) of law of r e v i e w i s de polestar of novo'"). "The intent of the statutory construction." Bds., 819 statute, So. we substantial heels of regarding 2d are 568, Legislature the S i e g e l m a n v. A l a b a m a A s s ' n of 57 9 hardly is (Ala. writing 2001). on a In construing clean amendment t o § 3 4 - 1 1 - 1 , c o m i n g , as this Court's legislative decision intent. in Hunter, Notwithstanding 9 School slate. i t d i d , on this The the reveals much the that fact 1081142 the legislature, in amending this section, included p r o v i s i o n s aimed s p e c i f i c a l l y at e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y , the contains expert much general testimony. construction that material It is a "specific having nothing familiar statutory rule M a s o n v . Owens, 514 (Ala. other 595 So. relies, 2d 466 ( A l a . 1992). grounds, The do of with statutory So. 2d 962, W i l k i n s v. language on the 964 Johnson, which Arthur a l t h o u g h d e s c r i p t i v e of the p r a c t i c e of e n g i n e e r i n g i n general, devoted i s not found to expert It never o v e r r u l e d on section provisions control more g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s . " 1987), to two is clear the sine i n those testimony. t h a t the p o s s e s s i o n qua qualification. The non of which procedure is to Alabama of Ala. speaking the "relative providers," restricts aimed a breach Code 1975, standard expert In § the that the of care to as t o the d. o f § 34- threshold standard of respect, 6-5-548(e), testimony 10 at is witness's intent i n subpart only license expert of engineers. reminiscent to proffered i s expressed obviously for establishing applicable the o f an A l a b a m a crux of the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s g i v i n g of e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y 11-1(7), s e c t i o n s o f t h e amended s t a t u t e care i t is which, for health witnesses who in care are 1081142 "similarly situated." testimony regarding performed, license. In such holding Van Bree's a legally 1 attachment that performed, pursuant case, testimony to an t o be p e r f o r m e d Indeed, Arthur must " i nany only engineer; required Alabama the testimony was i s concerned or that to the a t t i c opening. b y an A l a b a m a required license." 34-11-1(7)d. an e n g i n e e r ' s l i c e n s e inadequately affixed done work i n Alabama witness work Section to does come from a jurisdiction." the stairway was I t d i dnot address an A l a b a m a not be engineering i t d i d not concern under with contend "work engineer's that the o f t h e s t a i r w a y t o t h e a t t i c f r a m e was a n o p e r a t i o n constituted such work. Consequently, t e s t i m o n y was n o t p r e c l u d e d b y § 3 4 - 1 1 - 1 Van as amended. Bree's 2 N o n l i c e n s u r e i s t h e o n l y b a s i s a s s e r t e d by A r t h u r f o r t h e e x c l u s i o n o f Van B r e e ' s t e s t i m o n y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , he d o e s n o t c o n t e n d t h a t V a n B r e e was n o t o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d to testify. 1 Arthur also relies o n some l a n g u a g e i n an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n i s s u e d i n 2006 b y t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f L i c e n s u r e f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r s and Land S u r v e y o r s , as d i s c u s s e d i n J o n e s v . S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 0 5 2 7 , A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 ] So. 3 d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007). However, because t h e advisory opinion construed the statute before i t was s u p e r s e d e d b y t h e r e l e v a n t a m e n d m e n t s , i t s h e d s no l i g h t o n the i s s u e a t hand. 2 11 1081142 B. "A jury trial c o u r t has instructions, reflect State, the 770 law So. "generally Jury broad provided and 2d Instruction the those facts 115, speaking, discretion 139 instructions of the the standard i s abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . " LLC, 2d So. The trial 572, 574 (Fla. Dist. c o u r t gave case." (Ala. Crim. instructions 933 in formulating i t s the App. of accurately Pressley 1999). review C t . App. following Thus, for P o l l o c k v . CCC v. jury Invs. I, 2006). jury instruction: "In t h i s c a s e , l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , e v i d e n c e has been p r e s e n t e d t h a t T r i c a r e has p a i d m e d i c a l bills of the plaintiff, Samuel Bolen, that he i n c u r r e d as a r e s u l t o f h i s i n j u r i e s . I f you, the j u r y , d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a t f a u l t i n causing the p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries a n d a w a r d money damages, pursuant to the Federal Medical Care Recovery A c t , the p l a i n t i f f has a d u t y and must reimburse Tricare up to the amount of medical c h a r g e s p a i d by T r i c a r e . B u t i f y o u do n o t r e t u r n a 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 , he i s u n d e r no o b l i g a t i o n to repay those medical b i l l s . " (Emphasis added.) Arthur instruction. produced Mr. that at does He trial not contends, warranted Bolen's o b l i g a t i o n the Bolens challenge could the instead, no substance only that instruction, 12 Mr. this the evidence whatever, as to reimburse T r i c a r e . establish of Bolen's Arthur to contends obligation to 1081142 reimburse through T r i c a r e f o r i t s payment of h i s m e d i c a l the The testimony Bolens official. Medical did not offer Care Recovery A c t , invited Act, which the trial the court ... take judicial of the United Statutory testimony judicial n o t i c e of 2d Ala. 21, 862 Appeals on the (6th 39 So. Bruno's that 291, received letters So. 2d at fundamental 867. insurer a subrogation In so distinction statutes See Bryan (1949) i n which by v. the of between the and v. (taking Arthur the Massey, Court the i n any the expenses she insurer's recovery. 914 ignores the which the simply letters of injured insured that regarding interest doing, 13 Inc. evidence c o n s i s t m e r e l y of t e s t i m o n y to enforce and Statutes 292 the historically payment f o r m e d i c a l c o u l d not intent Act"), Singer, 2005), competent the ("the Supermarkets, insured's o b l i g a t i o n to reimburse from 2651-53 n o t i c e " of the statute). ( A l a . C i v . App. held of ed.2001). 2d Tricare court constitution Norman a trial "[C]ourts 38:3 23, of "judicial did. ... a federal relies take 2 § the U.S.C. §§ to only official. the apparently States." 252 So. court Construction Arthur 42 n o t i c e of Starkey, Civil a Tricare They d i d , h o w e v e r , a p p r i s e and 914 of expenses by 1081142 insured in Bruno's reimbursement namely, 42 judicial and sought the Act evidence of which i n the Arthur an trial he d i d not court and obligation presented Alabama never challenge argued has r e q u i r e the Bolens does not that to reimburse are independently aware of a s p l i t the Act such Andersen that the court the requires Corp., a 996 no against do 1339, here, may take in this Act Tricare. United Okla. 1969) the debate. States v. 1341 Compare the party (holding that injured party). The interpretation jury of the 2 99 Act the Act, and entirely. 14 is Supp. provides However, instruction F. we consistent Arthur has not, in we whether Holbrook v. (holding States from to funds tortfeasor"), 2 66, for decline Court. to United or of sure, ( 1 s t C i r . 1993) for injured Nation, does To be u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y p a i d t o t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y by t h e with substance o f a u t h o r i t y as provision the the so the reimbursement. F.2d "makes Act recover from of notice. Specifically, fact, establish obligation U.S.C. § 2 6 5 1 , Significantly, the to 2 68 (N.D. reimbursement to enter with ignored this Nation's this issue 1081142 "'It error 4 i s t h e d u t y o f ... t h e a p p e l l a n t [ ] t o d e m o n s t r a t e a n on t h e p a r t of the t r i a l So. 3d 5 1 3 , 521 court D.C.S. v . L . B . , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (quoting G.E.A. v . D.B.A., 920 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 0 , 1114 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ) . Arthur h a s n o t met applicability that h i s burden of showing o f t h e A c t , we p r e t e r m i t error Because as t o t h e further discussion of issue. Moreover, Bolen's the medical adjustments, Bolens expenses and introduced showing payments packet of by the totals Tricare. introduced a "Tricare statements, showing t h e amounts b i l l e d records o f amounts Arthur, Explanation of payment by T r i c a r e . an obligation, obligation. demonstrating charging but Thus, t h e r e also Consequently, Bolens' himself, Benefits" of times, approved evidence of t h e amount of that Arthur that the t r i a l h a s n o t met h i s b u r d e n o f court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e j u r y as t o r e i m b u r s e m e n t . III. In evidence was n o t o n l y Mr. billed, at the relevant as w e l l a s t h e a m o u n t s o f c o - p a y m e n t a n d t h e a m o u n t s for of summary, t h e t r i a l expert witness Conclusion court to testify. 15 d i dnot e r r i n allowing the I t also d i d not exceed i t s 1081142 discretion in reimbursement. charging the jury on The j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l the question court i s , therefore, affirmed. AFFIRMED. Cobb, C . J . , and S m i t h , Parker, 16 of a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r .

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.