Pruitt v. Oliver

331 So.3d 99

Randall C. PRUITT

v.James D. OLIVER

1190297

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 29, 2021

Frank O. Hanson, Jr., of The Cochran Firm–Birmingham, LLC, Birmingham; and Ivan B. Cooper, Birmingham, for appellant.

Kimberly S. DeShazo and Jeremy W. Richter of Webster, Henry, Bradwell, Cohan, Speagle & DeShazo, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.

MENDHEIM, Justice.

Randall C. Pruitt appeals from a summary judgment entered against him and in favor of James D. Oliver with respect to Pruitt's claims of negligence and wantonness stemming from a collision between Oliver's car and Pruitt's wheelchair. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I. Facts

Pruitt suffers from severe cerebral palsy and requires a motorized wheelchair to move around. At the time of the accident, Pruitt's wheelchair was equipped with a seat belt, two six-beam flashlights on the footrest, two flashing red bicycle lights on the back of his arm rests, some red reflectors on the back of the wheelchair, and an orange vest with reflective yellow tape that was draped over the back of the wheelchair. According to Amanda Brooks, a witness to the accident who submitted an affidavit, the reflective vest was "the same type vest police and street crews use while working on a roadway." The wheelchair was not equipped with a rearview mirror, a horn, brakes, or brake lights. The maximum speed of the motorized wheelchair was five miles per hour.

On the night of April 13, 2013, between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., Pruitt was traveling home on a bus to his apartment after attending a Wednesday night meal at his church, a regular outing for him during the previous four years. According to Pruitt, it was a "pretty" night with no precipitation of any kind. Pruitt was dropped off from the bus on Valley Avenue in Homewood. Pruitt's apartment was located on Palisades Boulevard, which is a four-lane road that intersects with Valley Avenue. There is a traffic light at the intersection of Valley Avenue and Palisades Boulevard. Two lanes of Palisades Boulevard go southbound and two lanes go northbound; there is a grassy median with planted trees that separates the southbound lanes from the northbound lanes. There are no sidewalks or shoulders on Palisades Boulevard; instead, there are curbs on the sides of each of the two-lane portions of the roadway. There are no crosswalks across Palisades Boulevard near Pruitt's apartment complex. Pruitt traveled down Valley Avenue and turned into the southbound left lane of Palisades Boulevard.¹ In that direction, Palisades Boulevard goes downhill. Pruitt was traveling down Palisades Boulevard, passing a tree planted in the median, and was coming close to the left-hand turn lane he would have entered to turn left into his apartment complex. Both Pruitt and Oliver testified that Pruitt was traveling in the middle of the left lane, but Brooks testified that Pruitt had "moved over to the left side of Palisades Boulevard and hugged the curb to the best of his ability." Also according to Brooks, Pruitt's wheelchair was "very visible" because of the lights, the reflectors, and the reflective vest on the wheelchair and that "[t]here was also a streetlight in the area that helped visibility." Pruitt testified that, before he reached the turn for his apartment complex, a vehicle hit the back of his wheelchair, causing his wheelchair to be pushed forward and then to flip over. Pruitt stated that he was still strapped into the wheelchair by the seat belt after the accident.

Oliver testified that he was on his way to a date after work on the evening of the accident and that he was "[t]hree cars back" when he came to the intersection of Valley Avenue and Palisades Boulevard.² Specifically, he said, "[a] bus [and] a car" were in front of him. Oliver testified that he came to a complete stop at the intersection and then he performed a left-hand turn into the left southbound lane of Palisades Boulevard. Oliver further testified on cross-examination:

"A. ... All I know is I was sitting at the light -- or sitting behind the vehicles and started moving forward, and I don't really remember if the bus turned right, the car turned right, and I went forward. I don't really remember. The bus could have turned left for all I know.

"All I know is that when I came down the incline, hit the straight plane, and you go over a crest, there was a wheelchair below the crest of that hill, and I'm looking right at the back of it.

"Q. Right.

"A. So did I see [Pruitt] cross that road, no. Was he hidden from me, you darn right.

"Q. When you say hidden, will you elaborate on that, like what --

"A. The crest of the hill allows a slope --

"Q. Oh, okay.

"A. -- all right, and you're going down. You're straightening out, and you're going down, okay.

"Q. Right.

"A. Okay, so as you're going down, you're straightening up, it's almost like as if you're going up and then come back down.

"Q. Right.

"A. And the height of the wheelchair below the hill, you couldn't see it, let alone it's 8:00 at night, between 8 and 9, and it's not very well lit as far as lights.

"Q. Got you.

"A. Did I see him right off the bat, no. Did I hit him at thirty or forty miles an hour, why hell no. At least I did get to see him, and when I hit him in the back, the car hit him or I should say, I hit the wheelchair directly in the middle of my car, which says he was directly in the middle of that lane.

"Q. Right.

"A. And that's when his my bumper hit his -- the back of his chair.

"Q. Got you.

"A. And I don't know whether I should say, it appeared to be -- what would you call that, he had the protrusion outside of the back of his wheelchair, the trailer hitch -- trailer hitch off the back of his wheelchair. And I don't know what kind of a boat he pulls --

"Q. Yeah.

"A. -- but it hit me right in the middle of my bumper, and there was over two thousand bucks worth of damage on the bumper of my car. And because -- it intruded into the actual bumper, but it didn't get to the actual radiator, didn't get to the other interior of the car."

Brooks testified about the accident in her affidavit as follows:

"On 04/19/2013, around 8:35 p.m., I witnessed a traffic accident from my driver side mirror that involved a Lexus and an electric wheelchair. The accident occurred on Palisades Blvd. right at the entrance of Sandpiper Apts. in the Homewood area of Birmingham. I had watched the man in the wheelchair as he crossed Valley Ave. after getting off the bus because of being worried about him. ... When the man in the wheelchair crossed Valley Ave., he moved over to the left side of Palisades Boulevard and hugged the curb to the best of his ability while attempting to turn into his apartment complex. Just before the crash, I saw the Lexus that hit him make a quick turn onto Palisades Blvd from Valley Ave. as if he were trying to beat a yellow light. He made the turn at a high rate of speed and hit the electric wheelchair from behind. The man in the chair was launched out of his seat and landed in the roadway. I could tell the chair had significant damage."

On September 23, 2014, Pruitt commenced this action against Oliver in the Jefferson Circuit Court, asserting claims of negligence and wantonness. On August 17, 2015, Oliver filed a summary-judgment motion. In the motion, Oliver contended that Pruitt's wheelchair was a "motor vehicle" as defined in § 32-1-1.1(33), a part of Alabama's motor-vehicle and traffic code, Title 32 of the Alabama Code of 1975, and, further, that Pruitt had violated provisions of the motor-vehicle and traffic code that require certain equipment on motor vehicles. Specifically, Oliver noted that Pruitt's wheelchair lacked brakes, a horn that could be heard at a distance of 200 feet, a rearview mirror, lighted head lamps and tail lights that could be seen from a distance of 500 feet, head lamps that could be illuminated beginning a half hour after sunset, and a reflective triangle of a particular size and variety for slow-moving vehicles.³ Oliver argued that, because Pruitt's wheelchair lacked the foregoing equipment, Pruitt was "contributorily negligent per se and, as a matter of law, should be barred from recovering on his [negligence] claim." In the alternative, Oliver argued that Pruitt "fits within the category of a pedestrian, [and Pruitt] was still in violation of the Rules of the Road." Specifically, Oliver contended that Pruitt had violated rules for crossing a street where there is no crosswalk because he had failed to yield the right-of-way to Oliver's car, he had failed to run his wheelchair "as near as practicable to the outside edge of a roadway," he had failed to "walk only on the left side of the roadway," and he had failed to "yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway."⁴ Oliver also contended that there was no evidence indicating that he had acted in a wanton fashion and that, therefore, he was also entitled to a summary judgment on Pruitt's wantonness claim.

On September 28, 2015, Pruitt filed a response in opposition to Oliver's summary-judgment motion. Pruitt argued that contributory negligence was not a defense available to Oliver because, Pruitt said, he had "acted exactly as a reasonable, prudent person would under the circumstances" given that there was no sidewalk on Palisades Boulevard. Pruitt also contended that there were issues of fact that precluded the entry of a summary judgment, including whether Oliver was subsequently negligent by failing to see Pruitt's wheelchair. Pruitt further contended that there was substantial evidence of Oliver's wanton conduct based on Brooks's account of the accident because she stated that Pruitt was clearly visible and that Oliver hit Pruitt's wheelchair while traveling at "a high rate of speed." Finally, Pruitt moved to strike the police report of the accident from Oliver's submissions of evidence in support of his motion.

The trial court twice set the case for trial but later continued both of those trial settings. On September 15, 2016, the trial court...