William D. Hicks and Donna Hicks v. Charles Ray Dunn, Jr.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama held that sufficient evidence supported submitting the plaintiffs' wantonness claim to the jury. The evidence included potentially excessive speed, failure to pay attention, construction warnings, and knowledge of a restaurant entrance that could involve turning traffic. The court reversed the judgment as a matter of law and remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiffs a new trial.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred in taking the wantonness claim from the jury because the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Dunn acted with reckless or conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
2. When reviewing a judgment as a matter of law, an appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and determines whether the party with the burden of proof produced sufficient evidence to require a jury determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by granting Dunn a judgment as a matter of law on the Hickses' wantonness claim.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Hickses, was sufficient to submit wantonness to the jury.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded