The Appellate Corner, 1113 ALBJ, 74 The Alabama Lawyer 406 (2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 RECENT CIVIL DECISIONS
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0From the Alabama Supreme Court
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Arbitration; Waiver
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0O'Neal v. Bama Exterminating Co., No. 1120176 (Ala. July 3, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Because parties had agreed that plaintiff could take depositions of third parties, and defendant could participate without waiver of its right to compel arbitration, 18-month delay in seeking arbitration did not result in defendant's having waived right to compel arbitration, even where defendant litigated enforcement of a contractual damage limitation in the parties' contract
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Medical Malpractice; Fictitious Party Practice
McCathey v. Brookwood Health Services, Inc., No. 1110760 (Ala. Aug. 2, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0The court reversed summary judgment for hospital in suit by patient for injuries resulting from overheated surgical sling, holding that expert testimony was not needed to prove that hot object would burn human skin. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of leave to amend to substitute for fictitious parties for lack of reasonable diligence; plaintiff had records before expiration of limitations period identifying the potential defendants, and plaintiff waited many months after commencement of suit to substitute.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Pharmacist Malpractice
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Morgan v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., No. 1120522 (Ala. Aug. 16, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Pharmacist's failure to fill a prescription with correct medication is an error of such a nature as to be understandable to the average layperson, thereby obviating the need for any expert testimony from plaintiff in order to establish a breach of the standard of care
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Juror Misconduct; Jury Charges
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0McDonald v. Kubota Mfg. America Corp., No. 1111513 (Ala. Aug. 16, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Venireman's answers to questions in voir dire were not false or even misleading so as to give rise to "probable prejudice." Plaintiff's specifically-argued objections in charge conference were not sufficient to preserve argued error in charges on appeal, because at end of charges, plaintiff simply stated objections to specific charge numbers, without stating specific grounds for the objections.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Insurance; Scope of Appraiser's Authority
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte Tower Ins. Co., No. 1120228 (Ala. Aug. 23, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Under Rogers v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 984 So.2d 382 (Ala. 2007), the courts are to determine whether a loss is in fact a covered loss, and that appraisers generally are to determine only the amount of a loss where the amount but not the coverage itself is disputed.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Wrongful Death; Standing and Capacity
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte Drummond Co., No. 1120580 (Ala. Aug. 23, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Administrator of estate brought wrongful death action under Ala. Code 25-5-11 (which confers claims upon the "dependents" of the worker). More than two years later, administrator moved to add wife of decedent as a co-plaintiff [who was a "dependent"). Defendants opposed, arguing that administrator lacked "standing" to assert claims via section 25-5-11 and, therefore, the amendment could not relate back, because the original pleading was a nullity. The trial court granted the amendment, holding that the issue was one of "real party in interest" and not "standing" so as to create relation back problem. Defendants petitioned for mandamus. The supreme court denied the writ without opinion.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Administrators Ad Litem; Wrongful Death
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Two interrelated decisions were released on August 23, 2013. First, the court denied rehearing in Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Roser, 34 So.3d 365 (Ala. 2012), which contained a special concurrence by Justice Bolin explaining the inability of an administrator ad litem to bring a wrongful death case, but noting that the error is one of capacity and not standing. Second, the court denied mandamus relief in Ex parte Wilson, No. 1120879, which involved the same issue.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Medical Malpractice
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Smith v. Fisher, No. 1120445 (Ala. Aug. 30, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Board-certified internist was not properly qualified under Ala. Code § 6-5-548 to offer testimony as to standard of care for neurosurgeon and neurosurgical resident
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0"Loaned Servant" Doctrine
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Eastman v. R. Warehousing and Port Services, Inc., No. 1111323 (Ala. Aug. 30, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Because evidence was in dispute as to the issue of who exercised ultimate control over agent, trial court acted properly to give instruction on the "loaned servant" doctrine.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Fraud; Reasonable Reliance; Contractual Performance
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Target Media Partners Operating Co, LLC v. Specialty Marketing Corp., No. 1091758 (Ala. Sept. 6, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0On original submission (December 21, 2012), the court reversed in relevant part a fraud verdict for a commercial plaintiff, holding that a fraud claim does not lie under Alabama law for misrepresentations made in connection with contractual performance, because such a claim is essentially in contract only.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0On the first application for rehearing, decided on April 19, 2013, the court withdrew its decision on original submission, and affirmed without opinion the judgment for plaintiff. On second application for rehearing, decided September 6, 2013, the court (in a plurality opinion) affirmed in relevant part the judgment for plaintiff as to liability and compensatory damages, on both claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and promissory fraud.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Foreclosure and Ejectment...
To continue reading
Request your trial