 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevenson v. Precision Standard9/17/1999
om August through December of '93. Is that it?
"A. Uh-huh.
"Q. Is that answering yes?
"A. Uh-huh.
"Q. And you just testified that you did not have any problems with having to take those seven tests; is that correct?
"A. That is correct."
We note that while Stevenson alleges that Pemco "forced" her into a drug-rehabilitation program, she, nevertheless, admitted at trial that she had had a problem with prescription pain medication that had been prescribed for her because of the on-the-job injury she had suffered at Pemco. She further admitted that while she was working at Pemco two independent physicians, including Dr. Strickler, informed her that she had a problem with prescription medication. As noted previously, the record contains a letter from Dr. Strickler recommending that Stevenson undergo "inpatient detoxification followed by outpatient treatment" for her chemical dependency.
Based on Stevenson's admitted testimony (1) that she had had no objections to the administration of any of the drug tests and (2) that she had had a problem with prescription pain medication, we find no substantial evidence of an actionable intrusion into her private affairs.
It is therefore clear that the evidence does not support a judgment against Pemco on any theory other than respondeat superior. "A jury verdict for an agent as defendant cannot be reconciled with a verdict against the agent's principal if the only claim against the principal is based on the underlying negligence of the agent." Owens v. Lucas, 604 So. 2d 389, 391 (Ala. 1992).
IV.
We must consider the question of the appropriate Disposition of these appeals. Ordinarily, in a civil case involving two inconsistent jury verdicts -- one on a direct claim and one on a derivative claim, or one on a direct claim and one on a claim based on vicarious liability -- on a proper motion both must be set aside. Id. at 391. However, because Stevenson did not appeal from the judgment in favor of Windsor, that judgment has become final; therefore, the doctrine of res judicata bars a new trial on the issue of Windsor's liability. Because the judgment against Windsor must stand, a judgment must be entered in favor of Pemco. See de Feliciano v. de Jesus, 873 F.2d 447 (1st Cir. 1989) (in light of an inconsistent verdict, corporate co-defendant was held entitled to a judgment, where plaintiffs did not appeal from judgment in favor of co-defendant president of corporation); see, also, United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO-CLC v. O'Neal, 437 So. 2d 101, 103 (Ala. 1983) (on a claim directly against an agent, and against the principal solely on the theory of respondeat superior, "a verdict in favor of the agent works an automatic acquittal of the principal so that verdict against [the principal] must be set aside"); and Perry v. Costa, 97 A.D.2d 655, 469 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1983) (doctrine of res judicata barred new trial on question of employer's liability, based on final judgment in favor of employee; judgment against employer reversed).
We pretermit Discussion of all other issues raised by the parties on appeal. Because Pemco is entitled to a judgment in its favor, the summary judgment in favor of Precision must be affirmed, and Stevenson's appeal from the remittitur order is moot.
1970642 -- AFFIRMED.
1971194 -- REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED FOR PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC.
1971222 -- DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Hooper, C.J., and Maddox, Houston, See, Brown, and Johnstone, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|