 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ford v. Carylon Corporation11/10/2005
, but Eady did not respond. Only when Eady began to hear the machine "bog down" did he turn off the vacuum. At this point, Ford was able to free his arm from the hose, and he observed that his arm had at least tripled in size. Paramedics were called to the scene, and Ford was taken to Guntersville Hospital; he was soon transported via helicopter to a trauma center at the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center ("UAB"). UAB surgeons operated on Ford's arm on three separate occasions, and Ford was required to undergo physical therapy and psychological treatment.
On December 10, 2001, nearly nine months after his injury, Ford returned to work at Video. For over a month, Ford performed work as assigned by Video, with the exception of one occasion soon after returning to work, when Ford was assigned to vacuum another tank, which he declared he was unable to do. He was last assigned to work for Video on January 16, 2002, and was told at the end of that day that there would be no work for him on January 17. In accordance with company policy, Ford telephoned Video each subsequent evening to determine whether there would be work for him to perform the following day.
On January 25, Ford's mother telephoned Video on his behalf and spoke with Donnie Keith, a superintendent. It is undisputed, for purposes of this appeal, that Keith informed Ford's mother that there would be no work for Ford on January 26 and that "he would call [Ford] when he had something, otherwise not to worry about it." Consequently, Ford did not thereafter telephone Video about potential work.
On February 5, Ford received a letter dated February 4 from John Kulbitskas, the president of Video; that letter stated, in pertinent part:
"Dear Mr. Ford:
"As per our past discussion and memos to you, you have failed to contact this office regarding any availability for work. On January 25, 2002, your mother, not you[,] called to see if work was available. This was the last contact Video has had with 'you.' Since you have not contacted this office for work this constitutes a voluntary resignation on your part."
On March 22, 2002, Ford sued the defendants and Wausau Insurance Company, Inc. ("Wausau"), in the Montgomery Circuit Court. He alleged against Wausau a workers' compensation claim and against the defendants claims of retaliatory discharge, intentional trespass, trespass, and the tort of outrage. The case was subsequently transferred to the Marshall Circuit Court. Wausau filed a motion, which the trial court granted, to bifurcate Ford's workers' compensation claim from his other claims. The workers' compensation claim against Wausau was subsequently resolved in Ford's favor. The defendants then filed a motion for a summary judgment as to all the remaining claims, which the trial court granted as to Ford's retaliatory-discharge and intentional-trespass claims. Ford filed a motion asking the court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment, which motion was denied. The trial court later entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to Ford's remaining claims. Ford appeals only as to his retaliatory-discharge and intentional-trespass claims.
Standard of Review
We review a summary judgment de novo, seeking to determine whether the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact and whether the movant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. If the movant makes a prima facie case that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden then shifts to the non-movant to present substantial evidence creating such an issue. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank, 538 So. 2d 794, 798 (Ala. 1989). Evidence is "substantial" if it i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|