 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mobile Infirmary Mudical Center v. Hodgen10/31/2003
ck, 810 So. 2d 645, 649-50 (Ala. 2001)."
Hicks v. Dunn, 819 So. 2d 22, 23-24 (Ala. 2001). Thus, in reviewing the evidence in this case, we are required to construe the facts and any reasonable inferences that the jury could have drawn from them most favorably to Hodgen.
Section 6-11-20(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides that a jury may award punitive damages only if the plaintiff demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has consciously or deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness, or malice. Section 6-11-20(b)(3), Ala. Code 1975, defines wantonness as " onduct which is carried on with a reckless or conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." That Code section further defines "clear and convincing evidence" as follows:
"Evidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion. Proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt."
§ 6-11-20(b)(4), Ala. Code 1975.
As to Hodgen's claim that Mobile Infirmary wantonly administered the digoxin, Mobile Infirmary contends that Hodgen failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of wantonness because, it argues, neither Espiritu nor Byrd intended to hurt Hodgen. In support of this claim, Mobile Infirmary quotes Espiritu's and Byrd's testimony in which both averred that they did not intend to hurt Hodgen when they administered the digoxin. However, one does not have to demonstrate an intent to harm to prove wantonness:
"In Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roush, 723 So. 2d 1250 (Ala. 1998), this Court stated, 'To prove wantonness, it is not essential to prove that the defendant entertained a specific design or intent to injure the plaintiff.' Wantonness is defined by statute as ' onduct which is carried on with a reckless or conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.' Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b)(3). In Roush, citing Bozeman v. Central Bank of the South, 646 So. 2d 601 (Ala. 1994), we described wantonness as 'the conscious doing of some act or the omission of some duty, while knowing of the existing conditions and being conscious that, from doing or omitting to do an act injury will likely or probably result.' 723 So. 2d at 1250."
Lance, Inc. v. Ramanauskas, 731 So. 2d 1204, 1211 (Ala. 1999). See also 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 284 (1989)("Wanton conduct involves a heedless and reckless disregard for the rights of another person, with consciousness that a pertinent act or omission may result in injury to another.").
It appears that, in making such an argument, Mobile Infirmary confuses the definition of "wantonness" with "willfulness." As this Court has noted regarding the distinction between "wantonness" and "willfulness": "The two are different and distinct concepts ...." Lyons v. Walker Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., [Ms. 1011101, April 11, 2003] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2003).
"To constitute 'willful or intentional injury,' there must be knowledge of danger accompanied with a design or purpose to inflict injury, whether the act be one of omission or commission. To constitute 'wantonness' the design may be absent if the act is done with knowledge of its probable consequence and with a reckless disregard of those consequences....
"....
"Further in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 461, 28 So. 2d 193, 194 [(1946),] we said:
"'A willful or intention
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|