Beddingfield v. Linam
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendants Jim Cody Beddingfield and his parents, Jimmy Larry and Rebecca M. Beddingfield appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff Trace Rex Linam, and appealed the trial court's order denying their postjudgment motion for a judgment as a matter of law ("JML") or for a new trial. The Beddingfields attended a 2004 family reunion and Fourth of July celebration at their house on Lake Guntersville. The boys (all cousins), including Cody Beddingfield, ventured off from their parents to a dock on the lake with bottle rockets and M-80s where they began lighting the fireworks and throwing them toward the water. One of the boys was hit in the eye by an errant bottle rocket. He would later lose sight in that eye. The injured boy sued his cousins and their parents for negligence, wantonness, assault, negligent and wanton supervision and negligent and wanton entrustment. In their challenge of the trial court's denial of JML, defendants argued the injured boy failed to present evidence sufficient to support many of his claims, particularly "negligent entrustment." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that no evidence was presented to support the negligent entrustment claim, and reversed the trial court with respect to only that claim. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Download PDF
Rel: 03/08/2013 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 , 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1101163 Jim Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d , Jimmy L a r r y B e d d i n g f i e l d , and Rebecca M. B e d d i n g f i e l d v. Trace Rex Linam Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-08-900468) MAIN, Court Justice. Jim Cody Beddingfield Beddingfield and h i s parents, Jimmy Larry a n d R e b e c c a M. B e d d i n g f i e l d , t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s a c t i o n , appeal from a judgment e n t e r 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 r a c e Rex L i n a m , t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s a c t i o n , a n d 1101163 from the t r i a l c o u r t ' s order d e n y i n g t h e i r postjudgment motion for We a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law ("JML") o r f o r a new reverse, I. On his r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t i n p a r t , and F a c t u a l B a c k g r o u n d and J u l y 2, trial. remand. Procedural History 2 0 0 4 , Jimmy L a r r y B e d d i n g f i e l d ( " L a r r y " ) w i f e R e b e c c a M. a family reunion and B e d d i n g f i e l d ( " B e c k y " ) were p r e p a r i n g and Fourth for o f J u l y c e l e b r a t i o n t o be h e l d at t h e i r h o u s e on L a k e G u n t e r s v i l l e on t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y . 1 and was then with his 14 Becky's son, years J i m Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d ( " C o d y " ) , who o l d , had parents. come t o the lake house t h a t day L a r r y ' s nephew, J e f f B e d d i n g f i e l d ( " J e f f " ) , a l s o come t o t h e l a k e house on J u l y 2 t o h a n d l e t h e t a s k o f the b a r b e c u e t o be served at children. on J u l y 2, off her friend, Jay T r a c e Rex T r a c e were b e s t Malone Linam friends cooking party. Jeff's wife, Lisa f o l l o w i n g day with However, b e c a u s e Cody was L i s a drove there son, the had to a r r i v e the B e d d i n g f i e l d ( " L i s a " ) , was their Larry at the lake house on J u l y 2 f r o m H u n t s v i l l e t o d r o p ("Jay"), who was then 14, and his ( " T r a c e " ) , who was t h e n 15. Jay and since the and had known e a c h o t h e r Because f i v e of the nine i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e have t h e l a s t name B e d d i n g f i e l d , we w i l l r e f e r t o a l l t h o s e i n v o l v e d by t h e i r f i r s t o r m i d d l e names. 1 2 1101163 first grade. J a y h a d known Cody married s e v e r a l years before. time together at the lake on two p r e v i o u s while approximately Larry, 75-100 The t h r e e occasions, Becky, people since who Jeff and L i s a had b o y s , who h a d s p e n t p l a n n e d t o "hang o u t " and J e f f p r e p a r e d were expected f o r the at the lake house t h e f o l l o w i n g day. Jay and Trace t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y saw B e c k y , L a r r y , a n d J e f f when t h e y a r r i v e d o r s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r . testified that B e c k y t o o k L i s a on a t o u r L i s a and J e f f o f t h e house that l a s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 15 m i n u t e s , a f t e r w h i c h L i s a l e f t . Jay and T r a c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d l u n c h w i t h Cody a n d t h e n t h e t h r e e b o y s went f i s h i n g f o r a w h i l e . A l l t h r e e boys testified t h a t t h e y t h e n came b a c k t o t h e h o u s e a n d f o u n d a l a r g e of fireworks said that on a p o r c h a t t h e b a c k o f t h e h o u s e . there were M-80s, a r t i l l e r y shells, pile The b o y s a b i g cannon, and a p p r o x i m a t e l y 500 b o t t l e r o c k e t s i n t h e p i l e . None o f t h e a d u l t s who t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l o r t h e b o y s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he o r she h a d b o u g h t t h e f i r e w o r k s , knew t h a t t h e f i r e w o r k s were on the back porch, the back p o r c h . 2 lake o r knew how t h e f i r e w o r k s 2 h a d come t o be on The b o y s t o o k b o t t l e r o c k e t s a n d M-80s t o Cody t e s t i f i e d t h a t a c o u s i n , K e v i n Rose, had been a t t h e h o u s e e a r l i e r on J u l y 2 a n d t h a t K e v i n h a d p r e v i o u s l y 3 1101163 t h e d o c k on t h e l a k e , where t h e y began l i g h t i n g and throwing them t o w a r d t h e l a k e . 3 the fireworks T r a c e and J a y testified t h a t they had shot f i r e w o r k s b e f o r e , i n c l u d i n g b o t t l e r o c k e t s , but Trace said that he had them without rockets before s h o o t i n g them w i t h T r a c e and J a y on J u l y 2. is that was no he h a d n e v e r adult Cody there that shot supervision. undisputed testified never adult shot b o t t l e supervision on It this occasion. After the three boys shot h o u r , T r a c e and J a y t e s t i f i e d , b o t t l e rockets f o r about an T r a c e went b a c k t o t h e h o u s e t o b r o u g h t f i r e w o r k s t o t h e l a k e h o u s e , b u t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t K e v i n b r o u g h t t h e f i r e w o r k s t h e b o y s f o u n d on the back porch. J a y and T r a c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d s p e n t t h e n i g h t w i t h Cody a t L a r r y and B e c k y ' s h o u s e i n H u n t s v i l l e s e v e r a l months b e f o r e t h e p a r t y a t L a k e G u n t e r s v i l l e . J a y and T r a c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on t h a t o c c a s i o n , Cody t o o k them t o a s h e d i n h i s b a c k y a r d a n d showed them a l o n g p i e c e o f PVC p i p e . Both J a y and T r a c e s a i d t h a t Cody t o l d them he h a d u s e d t h e p i p e t o l a u n c h b o t t l e r o c k e t s t h a t he a i m e d a t cows. J a y s a i d he h a d s h o t b o t t l e r o c k e t s w i t h Cody a t L a r r y and B e c k y ' s h o u s e i n H u n t s v i l l e a t a n o t h e r t i m e and t h a t Cody h a d a i m e d a b o t t l e r o c k e t a t a cow on t h a t o c c a s i o n . J a y and Trace t e s t i f i e d t h a t L a r r y and B e c k y were a t home when t h e y s p e n t t h e n i g h t , b u t n e i t h e r L a r r y n o r B e c k y remembered e v e r m e e t i n g T r a c e b e f o r e t h e day on w h i c h he was i n j u r e d . N e i t h e r L a r r y nor B e c k y was p r e s e n t when Cody showed t h e p i e c e o f p i p e t o J a y and T r a c e , and t h e y were unaware t h a t he h a d e v e r s h o t b o t t l e r o c k e t s a t cows. C o d y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l s h o o t i n g f i r e w o r k s b e f o r e J u l y 2. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t remember m e e t i n g T r a c e b e f o r e J u l y 2. 3 4 1101163 use the restroom back outside or t o get a d r i n k of water. and w a l k e d down a hill toward As T r a c e t h e dock, s t o p p e d on t h e g r a s s on t h e s h o r e t o t i e h i s shoe. bent over, immediately he said, thereafter, t h a t he was k n o c k e d began bleeding immediately "the last he thing a something down. whistling h i this left he b e g a n in his left I saw w i t h my screaming. eye. Trace two e y e s the b o t t l e As he was noise and, e y e so h a r d rocket h i t Trace, took him i n s i d e t h e house. Trace He said stated was Cody s t a n d i n g t h e r e , a n d Cody h a d h i s arm o u t . " that after he T r a c e s a i d h i s e y e was b u r n i n g a n d and t h a t lost vision heard came he that and J a y J a y a n d Cody said they r a n t o him and s t a t e d t h a t once t h e y were i n t h e h o u s e , "Cody s a i d he d i d n ' t want t o g e t i n t r o u b l e a n d just t o s a y i t was j u s t an a c c i d e n t . " Jay ran to get h i s s t e p f a t h e r J e f f , who l o o k e d a t T r a c e ' s e y e a n d h a d h i m p u t i c e on i t . J e f f r e c o g n i z e d t h a t T r a c e ' s e y e i n j u r y was s e r i o u s , so he t e l e p h o n e d T r a c e ' s p a r e n t s , C h a r l e s G a r y L i n a m ( " G a r y " ) and B e v e r l y L i n a m ( " B e v e r l y " ) , a n d t o l d them T r a c e had been i n j u r e d a n d t h a t he was g o i n g t o t a k e T r a c e t o t h e h o s p i t a l . Jeff s a i d he a s k e d G a r y a n d B e v e r l y where t h e y w a n t e d h i m t o take Trace. Gary and B e v e r l y 5 told Jeff t o take Trace to 1101163 Huntsville General Hospital, a l l t h r e e boys. and J e f f g o t i n h i s v e h i c l e with G a r y a n d B e v e r l y met J e f f a n d t h e b o y s a t t h e hospital. Jay's injury testimony was similar about the events t o Trace's surrounding testimony. In response q u e s t i o n s f r o m T r a c e ' s a t t o r n e y , J a y t e s t i f i e d as "Q. Was T r a c e point? injured by a b o t t l e Trace's follows: r o c k e t a t some "A. Y e s . "Q. Where were you when t h a t i n j u r y o c c u r r e d ? "A. I was on t h e d o c k . "Q. Where was Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d ? "A. He was r i g h t n e x t t o me on t h e d o c k . "Q. A n d where was "A. He was on started. "Q. T e l l us what happened? "A. Cody, he l i t a b o t t l e r o c k e t a n d p o i n t e d i t a t Trace and shot i t a t him. "Q. L e t ' s t a l k about t h a t . Can you d e s c r i b e f o r t h e j u r y , what y o u - - d i d you s e e t h i s happen? Trace? the shore, right where the dock "A. Y e s . "Q. Describe f o r the j u r y Beddingfield did. 6 to what you saw, what Cody 1101163 "A. Okay. He l i t i t i n h i s h a n d l i k e t h a t a n d t h e n p o i n t e d i t , then shot i t . "Q. Okay. "A. At Trace. "Q. What was t h e p o s i t i o n o f T r a c e when he was s t r u c k by the b o t t l e rocket immediately b e f o r e he was s t r u c k ? "A. He was k n e e l i n g o v e r . I t h i n k he was t y i n g h i s shoe o r s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t . I don't r e a l l y remember. "Q. D i d y o u o b s e r v e w h e t h e r T r a c e was l o o k i n g a t Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d t h e n o r y o u t h e n ? "A. No, he w a s n ' t . "Q. Was he l i g h t i n g a b o t t l e s t r u c k , was T r a c e ? "A. No. "Q. D i d Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d say a n y t h i n g t o you i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e he a i m e d , l i t a n d s h o t t h a t b o t t l e rocket a t Trace? "A. Y e s , he j u s t s a i d , h e y , w a t c h "Q. Hey, w a t c h t h i s ? "A. Yeah. Who d i d he p o i n t i tat? rocket when he was this. " "Q. A l l right. Now, d i d he g i v e any w a r n i n g t o T r a c e w h a t s o e v e r t h a t he was a b o u t t o s h o o t a n d a i m a b o t t l e r o c k e t a t him? 7 1101163 "A. No. "Q. He d i d n ' t "A. No. "Q. When he s a i d , h e y , w a t c h t h i s , was t h a t a volume t h a t , y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t f o r you j u s t t o hear? yell out anything? "A. Y e s . "Q. D i d he h i t h i s t a r g e t ? "A. Y e s . " Jay eye." said that, upon i m p a c t , T r a c e screamed "my e y e , my J a y s a i d he a n d Cody t h o u g h t T r a c e was j o k i n g a t f i r s t b u t q u i c k l y r e a l i z e d t h a t T r a c e was b a d l y h u r t . t h a t a f t e r t h e boys r e a c h e d t h e house, Jay also said Cody a s k e d h i m " i f we w o u l d j u s t t e l l e v e r y o n e t h a t he t h r e w i t up i n t h e a i r a n d i t came down a n d h i t h i m . " Cody w o u l d J a y s a i d he a g r e e d a t t h a t not get i n trouble. Later, t i m e so however, J a y s t a t e d t h a t he t o l d t h e t r u t h a b o u t how T r a c e ' s i n j u r y o c c u r r e d . c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , he testified: "Q. Now, I b e l i e v e y o u t o l d me as f a r as t h i s i n c i d e n t o r t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f events that y o u ' v e t o l d us a b o u t , t h a t y o u were a s k e d i f you h a d l a t e r t o l d some a d u l t s a b o u t t h e s t o r y t h a t y o u s a y Cody s u g g e s t e d . Who were t h o s e adults? "A. At f i r s t , I j u s t t o l d my mom a n d my 8 stepdad. On 1101163 "Q. When d i d you "A. I d o n ' t remember. "Q. I t was "A. Right. "Q. You n e v e r d i d t e l l a n y t h i n g o r L a r r y , d i d you? "A. tell them? some t i m e l a t e r , wasn't i t ? like t h a t to Becky No. "Q. I n f a c t , I t h i n k you a g r e e d w i t h me t h a t a t t h e t i m e I t o o k y o u r d e p o s i t i o n , t h a t w o u l d have b e e n t h e f i r s t t i m e t h e y w o u l d have e v e r h e a r d t h a t f r o m you? "A. Right." J a y a l s o s t a t e d on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n occasions when he and Cody had t h a t on t h e been s h o o t i n g L a r r y and B e c k y were n o t w i t h them. Jay w h e t h e r C o d y ' s p a r e n t s knew t h e b o y s had rockets cows. did none or Jay not of t h a t Cody had said that, talk the to L a r r y boys been a i m i n g at the p r e s e n t to shoot the b o t t l e Cody's r e c o l l e c t i o n and Jay's. the from rockets, been s h o o t i n g bottle l a k e house on permission bottle s a i d he d i d n o t know or Becky about the asked previous bottle rockets at J u l y 2, the boys fireworks and that any of the adults rockets. o f the i n c i d e n t d i f f e r e d from Trace He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l i t a b o t t l e r o c k e t and 9 threw 1101163 it as T r a c e was b e n d i n g o v e r t o t i e h i s s h o e . he d i d n o t p o i n t t h e b o t t l e r o c k e t intend to h i t Trace, Cody s a i d t h a t a t T r a c e , t h a t he d i d n o t and t h a t h i t t i n g T r a c e w i t h r o c k e t was an a c c i d e n t . the b o t t l e He d e n i e d a s k i n g T r a c e and J a y t o s a y t h a t T r a c e ' s i n j u r y was an a c c i d e n t , b u t he s a i d t h a t he told Jeff Cody on t h e day i t h a p p e n e d t h a t i t was an a c c i d e n t . a l s o s t a t e d t h a t as J e f f d r o v e t o t h e h o s p i t a l , Cody " r e p e a t e d over and o v e r [ t o T r a c e ] how sorry I was and how a c c i d e n t i t was, and I d i d n ' t mean t o h u r t h i m . " testified, i n response t o questions from b i g o f an Cody f u r t h e r h i s attorney, follows: "Q. Now, am I c o r r e c t , and c o r r e c t me i f I am w r o n g , am I c o r r e c t t h a t y o u r e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e b o t t l e r o c k e t e p i s o d e was t h e b o t t l e r o c k e t essentially misfired or went the wrong direction? "A. Yes, s i r . "Q. Is that the understanding w o u l d have h a d t h a t day? "A. Yes, s i r . "Q. Do you know t h a t t h e y e v e r h e a r d any o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n b e f o r e the d e p o s i t i o n o f Jay Malone t h a t was t a k e n a l i t t l e o v e r y e a r o r two ago? " "A. No, t h e y d i d n ' t . " 10 that your parents as 1101163 I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t none o f t h e a d u l t s p r e s e n t a t t h e l a k e on J u l y 2 were aware t h a t t h e b o y s were s h o o t i n g r o c k e t s u n t i l a f t e r T r a c e was i n j u r e d . was bottle J e f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i n v o l v e d w i t h d i g g i n g t h e p i t he n e e d e d f o r t h e b a r b e c u e , which was on where the boys fireworks. fire the opposite were, side and of the house said that he from d i d not the dock hear any J e f f s t a t e d t h a t he was h a v i n g t r o u b l e g e t t i n g t h e s t a r t e d b e c a u s e , he s a i d , some o f t h e wood a p p e a r e d g r e e n , so L a r r y firewood. left and went a b o u t a mile away t o c u t more L a r r y s a i d he h e a r d f a i n t p o p p i n g n o i s e s d u r i n g h o u r o r so he was too i n t h e woods g e t t i n g f i r e w o o d , b u t he the stated t h a t he n e v e r saw f i r e w o r k s a t t h e l a k e house and d i d n o t know t h e b o y s were s h o o t i n g them. A f t e r she showed L i s a a r o u n d t h e h o u s e , B e c k y l e f t and d r o v e i n t o town f o r g r o c e r i e s and i t e m s she n e e d e d f o r t h e p a r t y . to the hospital house with just as B o t h L a r r y and B e c k y J e f f was the boys. preparing Neither Larry to nor other returned leave f o r the Becky recalled s e e i n g T r a c e a r r i v e a t the house, and n e i t h e r was aware that he h a d b e e n i n j u r e d b e f o r e him i n J e f f ' s v e h i c l e with seeing Cody and J a y . 11 1101163 Gary and B e v e r l y met T r a c e i n t h e emergency room o f H u n t s v i l l e G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l , where h i s e y e was t r e a t e d , a n d he was sent Huntsville home. He then began seeing a n d B i r m i n g h a m i n an e f f o r t done b y t h e b o t t l e rocket ophthalmologists in t o r e p a i r t h e damage and t o r e s t o r e s i g h t t o h i s eye. However, o n l y some o f t h e damage c o u l d be r e p a i r e d , a n d h i s sight left c o u l d n o t be r e s t o r e d . e y e ; he h a s a p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t y eye. a Trace i s l e g a l l y b l i n d in his o f 100% t o h i s l e f t He h a s b e e n a s s i g n e d a 4 1 % p e r m a n e n t v o c a t i o n a l l o s s as result of the i n j u r y . Trace has had seven surgical p r o c e d u r e s on h i s e y e , i n c l u d i n g a l a s e r s u r g e r y , a retinal- detachment transpears plana repair vitrectomy, and s i l i c o n - s t r i p a retinal implant, a r e p a i r and c a t a r a c t removal, a glaucoma shunt i m p l a n t , t h e removal o f t h e glaucoma shunt, and a deep s c l e r e c t o m y implant. Trace's left eye i s p e r m a n e n t l y s c a r r e d and d e v i a t e s outward toward h i s l e f t glaucoma and double v i s i o n trial, h i s medical Trace following has expenses t o t a l e d testified the i n j u r y undergone. in his left pain he h a s e n d u r e d s u r g i c a l p r o c e d u r e s he He d e s c r i b e d how t h e i n j u r y 12 A t t h e time o f $101,378.03. as t o t h e s e v e r e and t h e v a r i o u s eye. e a r , a n d he h a s t o h i s eye has 1101163 a f f e c t e d h i s l i f e , i n c l u d i n g how h i g h s c h o o l was d i f f i c u l t f o r him because of h i s v i s i o n problems. i n j u r y made i t more d i f f i c u l t He s t a t e d t h a t h i s eye t o do s c h o o l w o r k a n d a f f e c t e d his r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h other people. lot different, and I lost T r a c e s a i d he f e l t " a something." " e v e r y b o d y w o u l d l o o k a t me d i f f e r e n t . " He also said that He f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e d how h i s i n j u r y h a d a f f e c t e d how he f e l t a b o u t h i m s e l f a n d how being around other disfigurement people of h i s eye. was difficult Trace because had p l a y e d b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t and had p l a n n e d of the several sports to continue p l a y i n g sports i n h i g h s c h o o l , b u t a f t e r h i s e y e was i n j u r e d he was no l o n g e r able to p a r t i c i p a t e i n any k i n d o f s p o r t s a c t i v i t y . He was a b l e t o g r a d u a t e f r o m h i g h s c h o o l , b u t a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l he had n o t t a k e n many c o l l e g e c l a s s e s a n d h a d n o t y e t d e c i d e d on a p o t e n t i a l career path. could find a doctor T r a c e s a i d he s t i l l h a d hope t h a t he who could at least improve h i s eye c o s m e t i c a l l y so t h a t i t would n o t t u r n outward and would l o o k more "normal," specialists disfigurement he but at the had seen time had of h i s eye. 13 of been trial able none to of the repair the 1101163 On Becky May 23, i n the 2008, Madison Trace and Circuit Gary Court. a g a i n s t Cody c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e , alleged and that Cody was "strictly damage[] t o T r a c e . " negligent and wanton The The of majority, liable continued and negligent removed as case proceeded to a jury Trace's evidence, Larry and and B e c k y moved f o r a JML them. The sole a plaintiff trial his trial. claims of The trial negligence, court Trace At the close as of to a l l court granted t h e i r motion s t r i c t - l i a b i l i t y c l a i m , but motion. the plaintiff. t o o n l y the c l a i m o f wanton e n t r u s t m e n t . as t o t h e of wanton A f t e r Trace reached the against and injuries and a c t i o n as claims alleged f o r causing the The and complaint also alleged claims supervision G a r y was complaint w a n t o n n e s s , and a s s a u l t e n t r u s t m e n t a g a i n s t L a r r y and B e c k y . age s u e d Cody, L a r r y , the charged wantonness, Cody moved f o r a trial the court jury assault, as JML denied on Trace's and strict l i a b i l i t y as t o C o d y ; t h e t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r c h a r g e d t h e j u r y on Trace's supervision, The claims and of negligent wanton s u p e r v i s i o n entrustment, as t o L a r r y and negligent Becky. t r i a l c o u r t ' s charge to the j u r y s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t part: 14 1101163 "Now, t h e d i s p u t e d i s s u e s o f f a c t t o be d e c i d e d by you i n t h i s c a s e a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : Number one, was Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d n e g l i g e n t i n t h e manner he u s e d b o t t l e r o c k e t s b a c k on t h e day i n q u e s t i o n . Number two, d i d Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d a c t i n a w a n t o n way i n t h e manner he u s e d b o t t l e r o c k e t s b a c k i n t h e day i n q u e s t i o n . D i d Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d assault Trace Linam. I s Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d s t r i c t l y l i a b l e f o r c a u s i n g i n j u r y t o the p l a i n t i f f , Trace Linam. D i d L a r r y B e d d i n g f i e l d and/or Rebecca B e d d i n g f i e l d n e g l i g e n t l y o r w a n t o n l y s u p e r v i s e Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d . D i d L a r r y B e d d i n g f i e l d and/or Rebecca B e d d i n g f i e l d negligently entrust bottle rockets to Cody Beddingfield. As t o e a c h and a l l o f t h e f o r e g o i n g , as I ' v e t o l d you, t h e b u r d e n i s upon t h e p l a i n t i f f , Trace Linam, t o r e a s o n a b l y s a t i s f y you by the e v i d e n c e o f the t r u t h f u l n e s s of the m a t t e r s and t h i n g s c l a i m e d by him b e f o r e he, as a p l a i n t i f f , w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r . " "Now, I t h i n k you've h e a r d me m e n t i o n t h e t e r m wantonness. D e f e n d a n t Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d ' s and/or defendant Larry Beddingfield's and/or defendant R e b e c c a B e d d i n g f i e l d ' s c o n d u c t i s w a n t o n i f he o r she o r he and she c o n s c i o u s l y a c t s o r f a i l s t o a c t w i t h a r e c k l e s s or c o n s c i o u s d i s r e g a r d o f the r i g h t s o r s a f e t y o f o t h e r s and he a n d / o r she i s aware t h a t harm w i l l l i k e l y o r p r o b a b l y r e s u l t . " "We've g o t more t h a n one d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s c a s e . So, i n l a w s u i t s s u c h as t h i s , I i n s t r u c t you and charge you that a l l persons are jointly and s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e f o r the proximate r e s u l t s of t h e i r negligence. Now, a parent's n e g l i g e n t conduct, i f any, does n o t b a r , and i n t h i s c a s e , w o u l d n o t b a r T r a c e L i n a m f r o m r e c o v e r i n g f r o m any o r a l l o f t h e s e defendants i f Trace i s otherwise e n t i t l e d to recover f r o m any o r a l l o f t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s . 15 1101163 "Now, a g a i n , o u r p l a i n t i f f , T r a c e , s a y s t h a t t h e defendants, Larry Beddingfield and/or Rebecca Beddingfield, negligently supervised Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d , and as a r e s u l t t h e r e o f , c a u s e d harm to Trace. I f you a r e r e a s o n a b l y s a t i s f i e d t h a t Larry and/or Rebecca Beddingfield d i d not use r e a s o n a b l e c a r e when s u p e r v i s i n g Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d and t h e f a i l u r e t o u s e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e c a u s e d T r a c e harm, t h e n L a r r y a n d / o r R e b e c c a a r e r e s p o n s i b l e o r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e harm. " "Now, t h e c o n d u c t o f any one o r o t h e r [ o r ] a l l o f t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s c a u s e d harm i f , one, t h e c o n d u c t n a t u r a l l y and p r o b a b l y b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e h a r m ; and two, t h e harm w o u l d n o t have h a p p e n e d w i t h o u t t h e conduct. "Okay. L i t t l e more s p e c i f i c h e r e . A g a i n , Mr. Trace Linam's c l a i m s a r e f o r n e g l i g e n t and/or wanton conduct [ a s ] to any or a l l of these three defendants. Now, i f T r a c e has not proved a p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m , y o u r v e r d i c t must be f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t as r e l a t e s t o t h a t claim, defendant or defendants. And i f he h a s n ' t p r o v e d i t , you d o n ' t g e t t o c o n s i d e r damages. I f T r a c e has p r o v e d a p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m , t h e n you must d e c i d e how much money t o award T r a c e on t h a t c l a i m . That money, as y o u ' v e h e a r d , and I i n s t r u c t you, t h a t ' s what t h e damages a r e , o r i s damages. " "Now, I m e n t i o n e d a s e c o n d o r two ago a b o u t t h e v e r d i c t f o r m s . Now, t h e f a c t t h a t we've g o t v e r d i c t f o r m s f o r you i n no way i s t o i n d i c a t e t o you a n y t h i n g a b o u t what you s h o u l d do o r t h e f a c t t h a t I m i g h t happen t o r e a d one b e f o r e I r e a d t h e o t h e r . We u s e d t o f l i p a c o i n s o m e t i m e s t o see w h i c h one I would r e a d . But I w i l l e x p l a i n t h e s e t o you. ... L a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , we've g o t two f o r m s . I f you 16 1101163 should find f o r the defendants, there is a o n e - s e n t e n c e f o r m . I t s i m p l y s a y s , we t h e j u r y f i n d i n f a v o r o f t h e defendants and a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f on a l l c l a i m s . I f y o u s h o u l d f i n d i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f a n d a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s , h e r e i s what I was a l l u d i n g t o e a r l i e r , t h i s f o r m i s g o i n g t o l i s t each defendant i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h a space t o c h e c k o f f i f y o u ' r e f i n d i n g a g a i n s t one o f t h o s e defendants. Then i f y o u s h o u l d f i n d a n d a w a r d c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, t h e r e i s a d o l l a r s i g n a n d a l i n e . F i l l o u t t h a t number, t h a t f o r e p e r s o n , v e r y , v e r y c l e a r l y and l e g i b l y , i f you g e t t h i s f a r . " I f y o u g e t t h e r e w i t h c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, you are e n t i t l e d t o c o n s i d e r p u n i t i v e damages. As I t o l d y o u , t h e r e i s no o b l i g a t i o n t o . B u t i f y o u do d e c i d e you want t o c o n s i d e r a n d a w a r d p u n i t i v e damages, i t ' s g o t t h e same t h i n g . You w o u l d i n d i c a t e as t o w h i c h d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s , a n d t h e n y o u w o u l d come down h e r e a n d p u t i n t h e d o l l a r amount, a g a i n c l e a r l y a n d l e g i b l y . " Trace's a counsel objected to the t r i a l court's r e f u s a l t o give requested 1975. 4 jury instruction 4 8-17-222, A l a . Code Cody, L a r r y , a n d B e c k y ' s c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g i v i n g j u r y charges against as t o § Cody Section and the as t o t h e s t r i c t - l i a b i l i t y negligent-entrustment, 8-17-222, A l a . Code 1975, s t a t e s , claim negligenti n pertinent part: " I t s h a l l be u n l a w f u l t o o f f e r f o r s a l e o r t o s e l l any f i r e w o r k s t o c h i l d r e n u n d e r t h e age o f 16 y e a r s u n l e s s a c c o m p a n i e d b y an a d u l t o r t o any i n t o x i c a t e d or i r r e s p o n s i b l e person. ... No p e r s o n s h a l l ... p l a c e o r t h r o w any i g n i t e d a r t i c l e o f f i r e w o r k s ... a t o r n e a r any p e r s o n o r g r o u p o f people." 17 1101163 supervision, Becky. and Neither wanton-supervision counsel objected D u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s , the court requesting three t e r m s , one all that the p a r t i e s , the trial those d e f i n i t i o n s . As j u r y sent repeat "wanton." court against Larry again a note to the the With the charged trial definitions consent the jury term "wanton," the to the and to the v e r d i c t forms. court o f w h i c h was claims as trial of of to court stated: "Okay. As t o w a n t o n , now, t h a t c l a i m has b e e n made [ a s ] t o a l l t h r e e d e f e n d a n t s . D e f e n d a n t , Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d ' s and/or defendant L a r r y B e d d i n g f i e l d ' s and/or defendant Rebecca B e d d i n g f i e l d ' s conduct i s w a n t o n i f he o r she o r he and she c o n s c i o u s l y a c t s or fails to act with a r e c k l e s s or conscious d i s r e g a r d o f t h e r i g h t s o r s a f e t y o f o t h e r s and he o r she, i n any c o m b i n a t i o n , i s aware t h a t harm w i l l l i k e l y or probably r e s u l t . " The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f T r a c e and against Cody, L a r r y , and B e c k y , and a w a r d e d T r a c e c o m p e n s a t o r y damages of $600,000. The j u r y d i d not v e r d i c t f o r m u s e d by the a w a r d p u n i t i v e damages. jury states: "We, the J u r y , f i n d i n f a v o r of the a g a i n s t the f o l l o w i n g D e f e n d a n t s : " x ' J i m Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d " x ' Jimmy L a r r y " x ' R e b e c c a M. Beddingfield Beddingfield 18 Plaintiff and The 1101163 "We a s s e s s t h e $600,000.00. Plaintiff's c o m p e n s a t o r y damages "As t o t h e c l a i m s f o r P u n i t i v e Damages, we, J u r y , f i n d i n f a v o r o f t h e P l a i n t i f f and a g a i n s t f o l l o w i n g Defendants[:] " Jimmy L a r r y " R e b e c c a M. the the J i m Cody B e d d i n g f i e l d " at Beddingfield Beddingfield "We a s s e s s p u n i t i v e damages a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t ( s ) i n t h e amount o f $ the indicated . " x ' As t o t h e c l a i m s f o r P u n i t i v e Damages, we, J u r y , f i n d i n f a v o r of a l l Defendants." On F e b r u a r y 25, 2011, the t r i a l on t h e v e r d i c t . Cody, L a r r y , and m o t i o n f o r a JML or, i n the trial. T h e i r m o t i o n was to Rule 59.1, A l a . R. a judgment Becky f i l e d a postjudgment a l t e r n a t i v e , a motion f o r a denied Civ. court entered the by operation P. Cody, L a r r y , Standard of of law and pursuant Becky Review appealed. II. "When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d t h e t r i a l c o u r t u s e d i n i t i a l l y i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r deny t h e m o t i o n f o r a JML. Palm H a r b o r Homes, I n c . v. C r a w f o r d , 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1997) . Regarding q u e s t i o n s of f a c t , the u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e nonmovant has p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . C a r t e r v. H e n d e r s o n , 598 So. 2d 19 new then 1101163 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . The nonmovant must have p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n order to w i t h s t a n d a motion f o r a JML. See § 12-21-12, A l a . Code 1975; 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 . 1989) . A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has p r o d u c e d 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 a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y . C a r t e r , 598 So. 2d a t 1353. In r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t v i e w s t h e 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 t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s 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 t o draw. Id. Regarding a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , h o w e v e r , t h i s C o u r t i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s ruling. R i c w i l , I n c . v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So. 2d 1126 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " Waddell So. & Reed, I n c . v. U n i t e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e 2d 1143, 1152 I n s . Co., 8 75 ( A l a . 2003). III. L a r r y and B e c k y Analysis f i r s t a r g u e t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a JML as t o T r a c e ' s c l a i m o f n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t . They a r g u e t h a t T r a c e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e o f t h e e l e m e n t s constitute a c l a i m of n e g l i g e n t entrustment. Valentine, 926 So. 2d 315, 319-20 that I n Edwards ( A l a . 2005), this v. Court d i s c u s s e d the cause of a c t i o n f o r n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t i n the context of the alleged negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle: " T h i s C o u r t has a d o p t e d R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s § 390 (1965) as t h e l a w o f t h i s S t a t e i n c a s e s 20 1101163 involving negligent Kiedinger, 389 So. A c c o r d i n g t o § 390, entrustment. 2 d 129, 132 Keller v, ( A l a . 1980), " ' [ o ] n e who s u p p l i e s d i r e c t l y o r t h r o u g h a t h i r d person a c h a t t e l f o r t h e use o f a n o t h e r whom t h e s u p p l i e r knows o r h a s r e a s o n t o know t o be l i k e l y b e c a u s e o f h i s youth, i n e x p e r i e n c e , o r otherwise, t o use i t i n a manner i n v o l v i n g u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k o f p h y s i c a l harm t o h i m s e l f a n d o t h e r s whom the s u p p l i e r should expect t o share i n o r be e n d a n g e r e d b y i t s u s e , i s s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r p h y s i c a l harm r e s u l t i n g t o them.' "Otherwise s t a t e d , '"[t]he e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t s of a c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t a r e : (1) an e n t r u s t m e n t ; (2) t o an i n c o m p e t e n t ; (3) w i t h k n o w l e d g e t h a t he i s i n c o m p e t e n t ; (4) p r o x i m a t e cause; a n d (5) damages."' Halford v . Alamo R e n t - A - C a r , L L C , 921 So. 2 d 409, 412 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g Mason v . New, 475 So. 2 d 854, 856 ( A l a . 1985) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) ) . " Trace argues t h a t at trial from incompetent, " [ t ] h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d which that the jury [Larry] known o f h i s i n c o m p e t e n c e , was p e r m i s s i v e , " could find a n d [Becky] that knew [Cody] was or should have and t h a t t h e use o f b o t t l e rockets t h u s , he a r g u e s , e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e e l e m e n t s o f 21 1101163 negligent entrustment brief, 18. at After against reviewing the Larry record in and Becky. this case, Trace's 5 we find e v i d e n c e o f n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t as t o L a r r y and B e c k y . p a r e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he o r she d i d n o t p u r c h a s e t h e t h a t were p r e s e n t know t h a t house. the The back porch testified were on boys said that after they tired of the they that by the time back porch found the the boys began grocery the shopping, so only adult t h e b o y s were s h o o t i n g f i r e w o r k s was of p r e p a r i n g t e s t i f i e d that t h e y had and at the J e f f , who to was The rockets not lake on the witnesses shoot the B e c k y had 15 y e a r s o l d . fired bottle the l a k e house the barbecue p i t . n o t young c h i l d r e n - - t h e y were 14 and of Various gone t o c u t f i r e w o o d Jay fireworks fireworks fishing. f i r e w o r k s , L a r r y had with his task Each a t t h e l a k e house and t h a t he o r she d i d fireworks no gone while preoccupied b o y s were Trace before and and C i t i n g Brown v. V a n i t y F a i r M i l l s , I n c . , 291 A l a . 80, 83, 277 So. 2d 893, 896 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , T r a c e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e " a l l e m b r a c i n g t e r m ' c h a t t e l ' u s e d i n t h e R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s i s not l i m i t e d t o automobiles." T r a c e ' s b r i e f , a t 17¬ 18. T r a c e i s c o r r e c t t h a t t h e w o r d " c h a t t e l " as u s e d i n t h e R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s i s n o t l i m i t e d t o automobiles, b u t we n o t e t h a t t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s i n A l a b a m a and i n o t h e r s t a t e s d i s c u s s i n g a c l a i m o f n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t as t o a p a r e n t i n v o l v e a p a r e n t ' s e n t r u s t m e n t of a motor v e h i c l e or a f i r e a r m to a minor. 5 22 1101163 t h a t t h e y were f a m i l i a r w i t h how t o s h o o t f i r e w o r k s . Cody d e n i e d e v e r shooting fireworks before that Although day a t t h e l a k e , a l l t h r e e b o y s s h o t b o t t l e r o c k e t s f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y one hour w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . Cody was known deliberately for reckless tried disagreement T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g to hurt behavior, someone, w i t h or d i s l i k e d Trace that or he that that had he ever had a so as t o want t o i n j u r e Trace. When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g determine produced whether the p a r t y w i t h 3d f o r a JML, we the burden of proof ( A l a . 1990). 514, 526 a jury, jury). does has Macon C n t y . Comm'n v. S a n d e r s , 555 So. See a l s o S a n d o z , I n c . v. S t a t e , 100 So. ( A l a . 2012) (noting that, i f evidence i n s u f f i c i e n t to permit submission of a d i s p u t e d f a c t u a l to must s u f f i c i e n t evidence to require a j u r y determination of the d i s p u t e d i s s u e . 2d 1054 on a m o t i o n We not then that conclude support issue that s h o u l d n o t be is issue submitted to the the evidence presented to the j u r y Trace's T h e r e f o r e , L a r r y and Becky claim of negligent were e n t i t l e d claim of n e g l i g e n t entrustment. 23 entrustment. t o a JML as t o t h e 1101163 L a r r y and B e c k y a l s o a r g u e JML as t o T r a c e ' s of developed c l a i m s of n e g l i g e n t and wanton "[t]he negligent/wanton tort i n the b e e n a l l o w e d t o go brief ("the [parental] state to the Beddingfields' supervision supervision o f A l a b a m a and jury." brief"), not meet the burden of proof required not s h o u l d not Cody, L a r r y , a t 27. is and They a l s o and a have Becky's t h a t " [ i ] f t h e c a s e l a w does p r o v i d e f o r s u c h a c l a i m , did to a L a r r y and B e c k y a r g u e i n t h e i r b r i e f t h a t supervision. tort t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d argue [Trace] [Larry and B e c k y ] a r e 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 i n t h e i r favor." Beddingfields' brief, a t 27-28. L a r r y and B e c k y f i r s t a r g u e the elements t h a t Trace d i d not of a c l a i m of n e g l i g e n t establish supervision: " [ I ] n t h i s c a s e , [ T r a c e n e e d e d t o show] e v i d e n c e o f t h e h a b i t u a l t e n d e n c i e s o f Cody t o r e c k l e s s l y and w a n t o n l y use b o t t l e r o c k e t s ; t h a t L a r r y and B e c k y B e d d i n g f i e l d knew, o r s h o u l d have known o f s u c h h a b i t u a l t e n d e n c i e s ; and t h a t , as Cody's p a r e n t s , t h e y f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l o v e r him. As t h e e v i d e n c e most c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e s , no s u c h h a b i t u a l t e n d e n c i e s were e v e r e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and no k n o w l e d g e on t h e p a r t o f L a r r y and B e c k y o f any s u c h t e n d e n c i e s was e v e r shown." Beddingfields' brief, a t 32. They t h e n a r g u e not e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m of wanton 24 supervision: t h a t Trace d i d 1101163 " F o r t h e same r e a s o n t h a t [ T r a c e ] f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a claim of negligent parental supervision, [Trace] a l s o f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h wanton p a r e n t a l s u p e r v i s i o n . A g a i n , no e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o show t h a t Cody h a b i t u a l l y m i s u s e d b o t t l e r o c k e t s a n d t h a t h i s p a r e n t s knew o f s u c h m i s u s e . " Beddingfields' conclusion wantonly a t 33. evidence "substantial brief, from that [Larry] supervised Trace's b r i e f , T r a c e a r g u e s t h a t he p r e s e n t e d which and [Cody] a t 31. the jury [Becky] causing could reach negligently severe a and/or consequences." He s t a t e s : "The evidence not only proved that [ L a r r y ] and [Becky] n e g l i g e n t l y s u p e r v i s e d t h e i r s o n , i t a l s o showed t h a t t h e y w a n t o n l y s u p e r v i s e d t h e i r s o n b y acting with reckless disregard of the r i g h t s of o t h e r s who were i n v i t e d t o t h e i r l a k e h o u s e o r around t h e i r son." Trace's b r i e f , a t 32. T r a c e a r g u e s t h a t i n S t a n d i f e r v. P a t e , 291 A l a . 434, 282 So. 2d 261 (1973), t h i s Court "recognized f o r n e g l i g e n t s u p e r v i s i o n " and " r e c o g n i z e d supervise children properly." a cause o f a c t i o n that the duty i s t o T r a c e ' s b r i e f , a t 29-30. c a s e , however, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from S t a n d i f e r . involved a babysitter's voluntary young c h i l d who, w h i l e of hot grease off a undertaking This Standifer to supervise a i n t h e b a b y s i t t e r ' s c a r e , p u l l e d a pan countertop, 25 injuring himself. The 1101163 plaintiff person in Standifer who had was the undertaken injured plaintiff, a duty to supervise with his Court's duty T r a c e , has to who the Here, supervise. sued the a l l e g e d t h a t L a r r y and B e c k y t h e i r own c h i l d , who i s a defendant had along parents. This a injured child, research has e i t h e r i n Alabama or i n o t h e r c l a i m of n e g l i g e n t supervision of his found few 2d 760 and or her child. There 6 of n e g l i g e n t boy, employer. One who, s t r u c k and supervision against while riding severely are a number of supervision, but s u p e r v i s i o n of an c a s e , L a n d v. N i e h a u s , 340 ( A l a . 1976), p r e s e n t e d c l a i m s negligent a or wanton s u p e r v i s i o n i n v o l v i n g a p a r e n t ' s almost a l l those cases a l l e g e the n e g l i g e n t an cases, s t a t e s , t h a t have r e c o g n i z e d Alabama cases i n v o l v i n g c l a i m s e m p l o y e e by reported So. of n e g l i g e n t entrustment the f a t h e r of a 17-year-old his motorcycle in a reckless i n j u r e d a young c h i l d . manner, Evidence i n Land O t h e r s t a t e s have r e c o g n i z e d s u c h c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n t s u p e r v i s i o n . See, e.g., W i l l i a m s o n v. D a n i e l s , 748 So. 2d 754 ( M i s s . 1999) ( r e c o g n i z i n g the c o g n i z a b i l i t y of a n e g l i g e n t s u p e r v i s i o n c l a i m as t o a p a r e n t b u t a f f i r m i n g a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t f o r t h e m o t h e r on t h e b a s i s t h a t she a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y i n a t t e m p t i n g t o c o n t r o l h e r 1 5 - y e a r - o l d s o n ) ; C r i s a f u l l i v. B a s s , 308 Mont. 40, 38 P.3d 842 (2001) ( r e v e r s i n g a summary j u d g m e n t f o r p a r e n t s on n e g l i g e n t - s u p e r v i s i o n - o f - c h i l d c l a i m where c h i l d r o d e b i c y c l e i n t o p l a i n t i f f , adopting § 316 R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s ) . 6 26 1101163 r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r knew a b o u t h i s s o n ' s r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g h a b i t s and numerous t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s b u t d i d n o t h i n g to take away t h e s o n ' s m o t o r c y c l e o r d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e s . The Land focused against the primarily on f a t h e r , but the " [ t ] h e i s s u e , p r e s e n t e d by control fact was or discipline f o r the jury. negligent-entrustment Court also also presents e v i d e n c e was Land indicates considered parental the that question supervision Court's research the to a question of controverted Court So. was reasonably Nothing presented cause of there with or negligent action. This f o u n d any A l a b a m a c a s e t h a t s e t s out t h e e l e m e n t s o f a c l a i m o f n e g l i g e n t s u p e r v i s i o n t h a t does not involve our an research supervision parent's own employer/employee found supervision. We any case that relationship, describes a cases to recognize a cause of nor claim d e c l i n e t o e x t e n d our h o l d i n g s negligence child. not a cognizable and 2d a t 762. whether Alabama r e c o g n i z e s as has 340 that failure s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e from which the j u r y c o u l d as i t d i d . " claim stated in dicta Count I I , of n e g l i g e n t his child The reach i t s conclusion, in the Court i n in L a r r y and 27 of wanton negligent- a c t i o n b a s e d on or wantonness i n s u p e r v i s i n g Therefore, has a h i s or her B e c k y were e n t i t l e d t o a JML 1101163 as to the claims of negligent supervision and wanton supervision. We a n e x t a d d r e s s Cody's a r g u m e n t t h a t he was JML as Trace's to injury. liability (Ala. Trace's This claim that Court he is strictly discussed the i n H a r p e r v. R e g e n c y D e v e l o p m e n t rule entitled liable of for strict Co., 399 So. 2d 248 1981). " A d h e r e n c e t o t h e s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y d o c t r i n e has b e e n a p p r o v e d by t h e R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , § 519 o f w h i c h p r o v i d e s : "'(1) One who c a r r i e s on an a b n o r m a l l y dangerous a c t i v i t y i s s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r harm t o t h e p e r s o n , l a n d o r c h a t t e l s o f another resulting from the activity, a l t h o u g h he has e x e r c i s e d t h e u t m o s t c a r e t o p r e v e n t t h e harm. "'(2) This s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i s l i m i t e d to t h e k i n d o f harm, t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f w h i c h makes t h e a c t i v i t y a b n o r m a l l y d a n g e r o u s . ' " "AN ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS A C T I V I T Y "The Restatement (Second) of T o r t s , § 520 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , s e t s f o r t h t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an a c t i v i t y i s abnormally dangerous: "'(a) e x i s t e n c e o f a h i g h d e g r e e o f r i s k o f some harm t o t h e p e r s o n , l a n d o r c h a t t e l s of o t h e r s ; 28 to 1101163 "'(b) l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e harm t h a t f r o m i t w i l l be g r e a t ; results "'(c) i n a b i l i t y t o e l i m i n a t e the r i s k the e x e r c i s e o f reasonable care; "'(d) e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e a c t i v i t y a m a t t e r o f common u s a g e ; by i s not "'(e) i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e a c t i v i t y t o t h e p l a c e where i t i s c a r r i e d o n ; a n d " ' ( f ) extent t o which i t s value t o the community i s o u t w e i g h e d b y i t s d a n g e r o u s attributes.' " I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t l i a b i l i t y f o r an a b n o r m a l l y dangerous a c t i v i t y a r i s e s out of the i n t r i n s i c danger o f t h e u l t r a h a z a r d o u s a c t i v i t y i t s e l f and t h e r i s k o f harm i t c r e a t e s t o t h o s e i n t h e v i c i n i t y . R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s , § 519, Comment d (1977). The b a s i s f o r l i a b i l i t y i s t h a t one who f o r h i s own p u r p o s e s c r e a t e s an a b n o r m a l r i s k o f harm t o h i s n e i g h b o r s must be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e l i e v i n g t h a t harm when i n f a c t i t does o c c u r . I d . "The r u l e o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y , however, o n l y a p p l i e s t o t h a t harm w h i c h i s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e a b n o r m a l r i s k upon w h i c h l i a b i l i t y i s b a s e d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , one who d e t o n a t e s e x p l o s i v e s on h i s own p r o p e r t y may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e r i s k o f harm t o persons or property i n the v i c i n i t y . I f , however, no e x p l o s i o n t a k e s p l a c e , b u t someone t r i p s o v e r t h e dynamite and b r e a k s a l e g , s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y w i l l n o t apply. Restatement (Second) o f T o r t s , § 519, Comment e ( 1 9 7 7 ) . " 399 So. 2d a t 252-53. Alabama c a s e l a w has h e l d Cody states that shooting 29 i n his brief bottle that rockets no i s an 1101163 a b n o r m a l l y dangerous a c t i v i t y such t h a t s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y a p p l y t o h i s conduct, and t h i s C o u r t ' s r e s e a r c h a c a s e so this holding. 7 an a b n o r m a l l y d a n g e r o u s the use o f e x p l o s i v e s a c t i v i t y was a q u e s t i o n Trace i s c o r r e c t t h a t o r d i n a r i l y the evidence that abnormally Trace shooting ordinary consumer dangerous activity. Among whether i s a jury p r e s e n t e d was was f o r the jury. the question c e r t a i n a c t i v i t y i s a b n o r m a l l y dangerous prove has n o t found Trace argues i n response t h a t i n Harper Court determined t h a t whether However, would question. insufficient fireworks other a to i s an things, the f i r e w o r k s t h a t c a u s e d T r a c e ' s i n j u r y a r e commonly u s e d . Cody p o i n t s o u t t h a t many o f t h e j u r o r s i n d i c a t e d d u r i n g v o i r dire t h a t they had shot such f i r e w o r k s . risk involved with ordinary F u r t h e r m o r e , much o f t h e consumer e l i m i n a t e d by t h e use o f r e a s o n a b l e c a r e , warning labels introduced into fireworks can be as e v i d e n c e d b y t h e evidence and by Trace's Most Alabama cases d i s c u s s i n g s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y have i n v o l v e d commercial b l a s t i n g . See, e . g . , B i r m i n g h a m C o a l & Coke Co. v. J o h n s o n , 10 So. 3d 993, 997 ( A l a . 2008) ( p l a i n t i f f s proved by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t e x p l o s i v e s were u s e d u n d e r a b n o r m a l l y d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n s ) . But see F i k e v. P e a c e , 964 So. 2d 651 ( A l a . 2007) ( s h i p p i n g o f an o v e r s i z e d l o a d i s n o t an i n h e r e n t l y d a n g e r o u s a c t i v i t y ) . 7 30 1101163 arguments as to Cody's alleged negligence in using the fireworks. Trace also states that applied strict liability K l e i n v. P y r o d i n e C o r p . , 117 Trace's brief, at T r a c e ' s argument. to 36. some Washington was not high found t h a t of serious a pyrotechnic near a l a r g e bodily before activity justifying conducting large case b e f o r e us, injury the crowds and P.2d does the (1991). not support spectators, Supreme fireworks imposition of h o w e v e r , Cody was Court displays damage. abnormally strict not the type of on p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y activity designed to cover. was not that the dangerous liability. conducting a near a l a k e . in this In large shooting This strict-liability is not rule was Because the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d to the jury s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e t h a t t h e use fireworks The fireworks p u b l i c f i r e w o r k s d i s p l a y ; r a t h e r , a l l t h r e e b o y s were b o t t l e rockets of that i t presented a commercial p u b l i c an cites company s e t o f f a or p r o p e r t y was has 917 crowd of setting off public concluded that displays the 810 however, spectators; Washington displays" an a c t i v i t y " o f common u s a g e " and risk Court the of Wash. 2d 1, In K l e i n , of State fireworks Klein, l a r g e d i s p l a y of f i r e w o r k s injuring "the case constituted 31 an of o r d i n a r y abnormally consumer dangerous 1101163 activity, Trace's claim of strict liability s h o u l d n o t have been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . improperly the strict-liability submitted to the jury, good-count/bad-count situation Aspinwall, t h i s Court we liability. against Cody have i n t h i s as t o Cody s i t u a t i o n i n A s p i n w a l l v. Gowens, In claim Cody T h e r e f o r e , Cody was e n t i t l e d t o a JML as t o t h e c l a i m o f s t r i c t Because against appeal analogous 405 So. 2d 134 was a to the ( A l a . 1981) . held: " [ I ] f a c o m p l a i n t has more t h a n one c o u n t and t h e defendant believes that the evidence i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t one o r more o f t h o s e c o u n t s , he must c h a l l e n g e t h i s b y m o t i o n for directed v e r d i c t [now a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , s e e R u l e 50, A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , s p e c i f y i n g t h e count which i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e and d e t a i l i n g w i t h s p e c i f i c i t y t h e g r o u n d s upon w h i c h the p a r t i c u l a r count i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e evidence. I f t h i s i s n o t done and a l l c o u n t s go t o t h e j u r y and a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t i s r e t u r n e d , t h e c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t t h e v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d on a v a l i d count." 405 So. 2d a t 138 ( o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ) . a l s o Waddell & Reed, I n c . v. U n i t e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e See I n s . Co., 875 So. 2d 1143, 1165 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; L i f e I n s . Co. o f G e o r g i a v. Smith, 719 So. 2d 797 ( A l a . 1998) . Here, c o u n s e l f o r Cody s u b m i t t e d t h e r e q u i r e d m o t i o n s f o r a JML s p e c i f i c a l l y to the s t r i c t - l i a b i l i t y motions. We cannot claim; court denied those assume t h a t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was based 32 the t r i a l directed 1101163 only on those of properly submitted Trace's claims to the jury. against f o r a new trial IV. wanton s u p e r v i s i o n a g a i n s t render and favor. negligence, on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . L a r r y and B e c k y , we As t o t h e c l a i m s c l a i m s we As negligent supervision, against render a Cody, we a j u d g m e n t i n h i s f a v o r on t h e s t r i c t - l i a b i l i t y as t o t h e r e m a i n i n g trial of Conclusion to the c l a i m s of n e g l i g e n t entrustment, judgment i n t h e i r claims Cody. We r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d and were f o r T r a c e and remand t h e as t o T r a c e ' s w a n t o n n e s s , and a s s a u l t a g a i n s t that A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t cause Cody claim remand t h e c a s e f o r a new consistent with this opinion. B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t Cody i s e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l , we p r e t e r m i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the other a r g u m e n t s made by t h e p a r t i e s . REVERSED; BEDDINGFIELD AND JUDGMENT RENDERED REBECCA M. AS TO BEDDINGFIELD AND JIMMY LARRY AS TO J I M CODY BEDDINGFIELD ON THE S T R I C T - L I A B I L I T Y CLAIM; AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL AS TO THE REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST J I M CODY BEDDINGFIELD. Moore, C . J . , and S t u a r t , B o l i n , M u r d o c k , W i s e , and B r y a n , JJ., concur. Parker, J . , concurs specially. 33 1101163 PARKER, J u s t i c e I concur (concurring specially). i n the Court's decision reversing the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , r e n d e r i n g a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Jimmy L a r r y B e d d i n g f i e l d a n d R e b e c c a M. B e d d i n g f i e l d on t h e c l a i m s them and i n f a v o r o f J i m Cody Beddingfield against on t h e s t r i c t - l i a b i l i t y c l a i m , and remanding t h e case t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l specially as t o t h e r e m a i n i n g t o note claims a g a i n s t Cody. I w r i t e t h e common-law f o u n d a t i o n upon w h i c h o u r d e c i s i o n r e s t s a n d t h e r o l e o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o amend i t , i f necessary. I. Parental Liability f o r the Torts of Minor Children at Common Law The notion upbringing that of t h e i r parents children are responsible i s so b a s i c t o our s o c i e t a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t i t may seem i n t u i t i v e t h a t c o u r t s parents should hold l i a b l e f o r harm c a u s e d b y t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n t h e y a r e responsible to nourish, h o w e v e r , f o u n d no s u c h The f o r the basis educate, and t r a i n . The common l a w , liability. i n t h e common law f o r not h o l d i n g parents v i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e f o r t h e t o r t s o f t h e i r m i n o r c h i l d r e n stems from the theory own torts. that a person i s l i a b l e only f o rh i s or her See M c C a u l e y v . Wood, 2 N . J . L . 86, 86 ( N . J . 1806) 34 1101163 ("Upon [common l a w ] p r i n c i p l e s made l i a b l e In ... one p e r s o n f o r the trespass of another."). h i s C o m m e n t a r i e s on t h e Laws o f E n g l a n d , S i r W i l l i a m Blackstone found that, a t common law, minor c h i l d r e n were n e i t h e r t h e same l e g a l e n t i t y as t h e i r p a r e n t s , exist f o r the b e n e f i t of t h e i r basis on w h i c h t o impose v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y the t o r t s of t h e i r minor parents. rule that parents 9 8 nor d i d they Thus, t h e r e was no on p a r e n t s f o r children. American j u r i s p r u d e n c e has l a r g e l y law c a n n e v e r be are not l i a b l e f o l l o w e d t h e common- f o r the t o r t s of t h e i r T h e common l a w i m p o s e d upon p a r e n t s t h r e e d u t i e s t o t h e i r minor c h i l d r e n : (1) m a i n t e n a n c e , (2) p r o t e c t i o n , a n d (3) e d u c a t i o n . I n r e t u r n , c h i l d r e n owed t h e i r p a r e n t s obedience, h o n o r , a n d s u p p o r t i n t h e i r o l d age. See 1 W i l l i a m B l a c k s t o n e , 1 C o m m e n t a r i e s , *446-54. T h e r e was n e v e r , h o w e v e r , a m e r g e r o f l e g a l i d e n t i t y . A f a t h e r h a d no power o v e r h i s s o n ' s e s t a t e , e x c e p t as a t r u s t e e o r g u a r d i a n , f o r w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o g i v e an a c c o u n t i n g when h i s s o n r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . I d . a t *453. B e c a u s e p a r e n t s have a l w a y s b e e n v i e w e d as s e p a r a t e l e g a l e n t i t i e s f r o m t h e i r c h i l d r e n , t h e r e was n e v e r a b a s i s f o r v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y , e x c e p t i f t h e m i n o r was a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f a p a r e n t . 8 " [ C ] h i l d r e n are brought i n t o t h i s world, not f o r the g r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r parents, but i n the f u l f i l l m e n t of d u t i e s t o mankind E l i s h a Greenhood, L i a b i l i t y o f a P a r e n t f o r t h e T o r t s o f H i s M i n o r C h i l d r e n , 18 C e n t . L . J . 3, 7 (1884) ( c i t e d b y W i l l i a m L. P r o s s e r , P r o s s e r on t h e Law o f T o r t s § 123 n. 33 ( 4 t h e d . 1 9 7 1 ) ) . 9 35 1101163 children. 1 0 M c C a u l e y v. Wood, s u p r a , American case i n v o l v i n g a parent's his or her c h i l d r e n . Hannah sons. M'Calla liability I n McCauley, a l l e g i n g a trespass I n t h e absence C o u r t o f New J e r s e y i s the e a r l i e s t 1 1 Aula known f o r the torts of M'Cauley committed Wood by sued M'Calla's o f an a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e , t h e Supreme a p p l i e d t h e common-law r u l e that "one p e r s o n c a n n e v e r be made l i a b l e f o r the t r e s p a s s o f a n o t h e r . I t i s t r u e , t h a t i f one command o r a u t h o r i z e h i s s e r v a n t t o commit a t r e s p a s s , he i s answerable h i m s e l f ; but then i t i s the trespass of t h e m a s t e r , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w e l l known maxim o f t h e law, q u i f a c i t p e r a l i u m f a c i t p e r se, [ ] and i t must be s o c h a r g e d i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o r s t a t e o f demand." 12 2 N . J . L . a t 86. The M c C a u l e y c o u r t recognized are their separate children the legal entities do n o t a c t on b e h a l f parents' of their command o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n . court held that M'Calla instead, from the court that parents parents children and unless I d . Therefore, that under the was n o t l i a b l e f o r h e r s o n s ' t r e s p a s s ; held that t h e c h i l d r e n were l i a b l e f o r t h e i r own w r o n g d o i n g . As a c i v i l - l a w common l a w . 10 state, Louisiana does not follow the A l t h o u g h t h i s c a s e i s s t y l e d " M c C a u l e y v . Wood, " t h e p a r t i e s ' names a r e s t a t e d i n t h e t e x t o f t h e o p i n i o n as " A u l a M ' C a u l e y Wood" a n d "Hannah M ' C a l l a . " 1 1 12 "He who a c t s t h r o u g h a n o t h e r , a c t s 36 himself." 1101163 The c i v i l - l a w j u r i s d i c t i o n o f L o u i s i a n a has n o t f o l l o w e d the common-law r u l e are not v i c a r i o u s l y liable for t h e t o r t s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n . I n M u l l i n s v. B l a i s e , 37 L a . Ann. that parents 92 ( 1 8 8 5 ) , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s i x - y e a r - o l d s o n s h o t a Roman candle toward a group o f c h i l d r e n and s t r u c k t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s minor daughter i n t h e e y e w i t h one o f t h e " f l a m i n g b a l l s . " I d . In finding f o r the p l a i n t i f f , the court stated: " I t i s t r u e t h a t by r e a s o n o f t h e t e n d e r y e a r s and l a c k o f d i s c e r n m e n t o f t h e m i n o r , t h i s f a u l t may n o t be, i n a l e g a l s e n s e , i m p u t a b l e t o h i m . B u t ... t h a t t h i s i s a reason f o r exempting the father from l i a b i l i t y c a n f i n d no r e c o g n i t i o n a t o u r h a n d s . The law i t s e l f imputes the f a u l t to the father. I t presumes t h a t i t r e s u l t e d from l a c k o f s u f f i c i e n t c a r e , w a t c h f u l n e s s a n d d i s c i p l i n e on h i s p a r t , i n the e x e r c i s e of the p a t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y . This i s the v e r y reason and f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e r u l e . "For upon t h e who have than the l i k e reason t h e law imposes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y owner f o r damage o c c a s i o n e d b y h i s a n i m a l s , c e r t a i n l y no g r e a t e r p o w e r s o f d i s c e r n m e n t i n f a n t of tender years." Id. This form of s t r i c t liability f o r the t o r t s o f one's c h i l d r e n i n a c i v i l - l a w j u r i s d i c t i o n was a r t i c u l a t e d a g a i n b y t h e Supreme C o u r t o f L o u i s i a n a i n J o h n s o n v. B u t t e r w o r t h , 180 L a . 586, 613, 157 So. 121, 129 ( 1 9 3 4 ) , i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t h e l d that "the parent minor c h i l d , i s responsible f o r a tort committed e v e n t h o u g h t h e p a r e n t c o u l d n o t have the a c t t h a t caused the i n j u r y . " 37 by h i s prevented 1101163 The Supreme C o u r t of M i s s o u r i explained the difference b e t w e e n t h e c i v i l l a w and t h e common l a w i n B a k e r v. Haldeman, 24 Mo. 219 (1857): "An o p i n i o n , we b e l i e v e , p r e v a i l s t o some e x t e n t i n t h e community, t h a t a f a t h e r must answer f o r a l l t h e c i v i l i n j u r i e s i n f l i c t e d by h i s c h i l d , and we may s u p p o s e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e r e i s a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h i s s e n t i m e n t i n t h e common s e n s e o f m a n k i n d . And a c c o r d i n g l y , i t was t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e e a r l y Roman l a w t h a t i f a c h i l d o r a s l a v e c o m m i t t e d an i n j u r y , t h e p e r s o n i n j u r e d had a remedy f o r t h e wrong done him a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r o r m a s t e r , b u t he had no a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e son o r t h e s l a v e ; and t h e f a t h e r o r m a s t e r m i g h t e i t h e r pay t h e damages t o t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n or s u r r e n d e r the o f f e n d e r to him. ( S m i t h ' s D i c t i o n a r y o f G r e e k and Roman A n t i q u i t i e s ; ' N o x a l i s A c t i o , ' J u s t i n i a n I n s t . by S a u n d e r s , L i b . 4, T i t . 8.) And i n t h e I n s t i t u t e s i t i s s a i d t o be w i t h g r e a t reason t h a t the master i s p e r m i t t e d t o d e l i v e r up t h e o f f e n d i n g s l a v e ; f o r t h a t i t w o u l d be v e r y u n j u s t , when a s l a v e does a w r o n g f u l a c t , t o make t h e m a s t e r l i a b l e t o l o s e any t h i n g more t h a n t h e s l a v e i t s e l f ; and t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e a n c i e n t s a p p l i e d t h e same r u l e t o c h i l d r e n , y e t t h e f e e l i n g o f l a t e r t i m e s had r i g h t l y r e j e c t e d s u c h e x t r e m e r i g o r , and t h e s u r r e n d e r o f c h i l d r e n had passed w h o l l y i n t o d i s u s e . The g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e o f t h e Roman l a w , t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e n o t o n l y f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by h i s own a c t , b u t f o r a l l t h a t a r e c a u s e d by t h e a c t o f p e r s o n s and t h i n g s u n d e r h i s d o m i n i o n , i s e x p r e s s l y a d o p t e d i n t h e C i v i l Code of France ( A r t . 1384); but the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a f a t h e r f o r the a c t of h i s minor c h i l d i s not i n c u r r e d t h e r e , i f t h e f a t h e r can p r o v e t h a t he was not able to p r e v e n t the a c t which g i v e s r i s e to the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; and t h e same p r i n c i p l e s a r e a d o p t e d and acted upon in the State of Louisiana. ( C l e a v e l a n d v. Mayo, 19 L a . 414 [ ( 1 8 4 1 ) ] ....) Our unwritten law, however, imposes no such r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon p a r e n t o r m a s t e r , a l t h o u g h the s t a t u t e l a w has made t h e m a s t e r l i a b l e f o r c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d o f f e n s e s of h i s s l a v e , not t o exceed the 38 1101163 slave's value, the l i m i t prescribed i n the ancient Roman law. (Ewing v. Thompson, 13 Mo. 132 [ ( 1 8 5 0 ) ] . ) The p r e s e n t p l a i n t i f f , t h e r e f o r e , h a d no c a u s e o f action against t h e d e f e n d a n t , e v e n upon h i s own ^ 44- ^ vv, ^ v., 4^ -P V,-; ^ II s t a t e m e n t o f h i s ^c a ^s ^e . " The common l a w r e j e c t e d of pecuniary liability t h e Roman l a w a n d c i v i l - l a w f o r t h e harm c a u s e d b y " p e r s o n s a n d t h i n g s " under a p a r e n t ' s dominion. Id. Instead, based l i a b i l i t y II. concepts t h e common l a w upon t h e f a u l t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . A l a b a m a ' s A d o p t i o n o f t h e Common Law b y Statute A l a b a m a a d o p t e d t h e common l a w b y s t a t u t e : "The common l a w o f E n g l a n d , so f a r as i t i s n o t inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h i s s t a t e , s h a l l t o g e t h e r w i t h such i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d l a w s , be t h e r u l e o f d e c i s i o n s , a n d s h a l l c o n t i n u e i n f o r c e , e x c e p t as from time t o time i t may be a l t e r e d o r r e p e a l e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . " § 1-3-1, A l a . 320, " ) . A l a b a m a a d o p t e d t h e common l a w o f E n g l a n d "where common law i s not c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law." 720, 251 A l a . 323, 37 So. 2d. 193, 195 (1948) ("Alabama i s a common l a w state the Code 1975. See H o l l i s v. C r i t t e n d e n , 721 contrary in Weaver v . G.D. S e a r l e (N.D. A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . statutory conflict authority, Therefore, with statutory or & Co., 558 F. Supp. i n t h e absence Alabama f o l l o w s of t h e common-law rule that parents are not v i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e for the t o r t s of t h e i r m i n o r c h i l d r e n . See G r a y v . Meadows, 24 A l a . App. 487, 488, 136 So. 876, 877 (1931) ("[T]he mere f a c t o f p a t e r n i t y 39 1101163 does n o t make t h e f a t h e r liable f o r t h e t o r t s o f h i s minor c h i l d . " ) ; W i n f r e y v. A u s t i n , 260 A l a . 439, 443, 71 So. 2d 15, 18 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ; a n d D i x i e A u t o I n s . Co. v. S t e e l e , 288 A l a . 459, 463, 262 So. 2d 283, 286 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . I n 1965, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e a l t e r e d t h e common-law rule that parents are not v i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e f o r the t o r t s of their minor guardians to, c h i l d r e n by imposing l i a b i l i t y f o r " a l l damages p r o x i m a t e l y o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f , any p r o p e r t y , by t h e i n t e n t i o n a l , w i l l f u l , upon p a r e n t s o r caused by t h e i n j u r y real, personal or malicious a c t or acts ofthe m i n o r . " § 6-5-380, A l a . Code 1975. The l i a b i l i t y 6-5-380 was o r i g i n a l l y capped a t $500, o r mixed, imposed by § b u t was raised to $1,000 i n 1994 b y A c t No. 94-819, A l a . A c t s 1994. It i s the role statutes State, that 353 of the j u d i c i a r y t o s t r i c t l y "alter So. or repeal" 2d 524, construe law. Arnold v. ( A l a . 1977) 526 t h e common ("Statutes in derogation or modification o f t h e common construed. Such s t a t u t e s a r e p r e s u m e d n o t t o a l t e r t h e common law i n any way n o t e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d . " ) ; 407 So. 2d. 139 imposes ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . liability f o r only "intentional, willful, the common l a w s t i l l property or malicious" applies Sutherland Because damage strictly v. R o t h , § 6-5-380 caused by a c t s o f minor c h i l d r e n , to property 40 law are damage and other 1101163 damage c a u s e d by a l l o t h e r a c t i o n s o f m i n o r c h i l d r e n . Nor does t h e r e e x i s t any b a s i s u n d e r t h e common l a w o r t h e A l a b a m a Code for recognizing causes of a c t i o n f o r n e g l i g e n t wanton s u p e r v i s i o n Lastly, sit s u p e r v i s i o n or o f one's c h i l d r e n . I note t h a t i t i s not the r o l e of t h i s Court t o i n judgment legislature. of the wisdom S u t t l e s v. Roy, of 75 So. the enactments 3d 90, 104 of the ( A l a . 2010) ( " ' [ I ] t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , and n o t t h i s C o u r t , has t h e e x c l u s i v e domain t o f o r m u l a t e Alabama.'" Parris, (Shaw, J . , c o n c u r r i n g 952 So. 2d 364, 367 C o n s t . 1901, A r t . I I I , § 43 ... the judicial legislative s p e c i a l l y ) ( q u o t i n g B o l e s v. (Ala. 2006))). See also A l a . ("In t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f t h i s [department] and e x e c u t i v e public policy i n shall never state exercise p o w e r s , o r e i t h e r o f them Furthermore, " ' [ f ] o r e v e r y wrong, t h e r e i s a remedy,' i t has b e e n s a i d , and i t i s t r u e o f t h i s q u e s t i o n . E v e r y one i s h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s own a c t s , r e g a r d l e s s o f s e x , age o r c o n d i t i o n o f m i n d . The p r o p e r t y r i g h t s o f e v e r y one a r e s a c r e d ; e v e r y i n f r a c t i o n o f them r e n d e r s t h e d i s t u r b e r l i a b l e . I t may be s a i d t h a t , as a g e n e r a l r u l e , m i n o r s p o s s e s s no p r o p e r t y , and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e t o p u r s u e them, w o u l d be f u t i l e . B u t i t has a l w a y s been t h e p o l i c y o f t h e l a w t o e n t i r e l y ignore the question of wealth or poverty, in determining the law. Such questions have no influence upon the judicial mind ... [T]he l e g i s l a t u r e s s h o u l d be a p p e a l e d t o , t o s u p p l y what i s necessary." 41 the "). 1101163 E l i s h a Greenhood, L i a b i l i t y of a Parent f o r the T o r t s of His M i n o r C h i l d r e n , 18 C e n t . L . J . 3, 7 (1884) ( c i t e d by W i l l i a m L. Prosser, 123 1971)). P r o s s e r on I agree. the Law I f t h e remedy f o r a c h i l d ' s common l a w i s i n s u f f i c i e n t , legislature, of Torts § n. 33 tort (4th ed. under i t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y not the c o u r t s , to address the 42 problem. of the the
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.
