Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fulghum Fibres, Inc. v. Stokes

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

January 9, 2015

Fulghum Fibres, Inc., and Alphonso Gross
v.
C. Dwayne Stokes and Frisco Forest Products, LLC; C. Dwayne Stokes
v.
Fulghum Fibres, Inc., and Alphonso Gross; Frisco Forest Products, LLC
v.
C. Dwayne Stokes

          Appeals from Monroe Circuit Court. (CV-11-900001). Dawn W. Hare, Trial Judge.

         For Fulgham Fibres, Inc., Alphonso Gross, Appellants/Cross-Appellees: William E. Shreve, Jr., Lara B. Keahey, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Mobile.

         For C. Dwayne Stokes, Appellee/Cross-Appellant: R. Edwin Lamberth, Gilmore Law Firm, Grove Hill.

         For Frisco Forest Products, LLC, Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Ian D. Rosenthal, Patrick H. Sims, Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal LLP, Mobile.

         PITTMAN, Judge. Thompson, P.J., and Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.

          OPINION

Page 971

          PITTMAN, Judge.

         These appeals (transferred to this court by our supreme court pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6)) arise from a civil action brought in the Monroe Circuit Court by C. Dwayne Stokes (" the employee" ). In his original complaint, filed in March 2011, the employee asserted a single claim seeking an award of benefits under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-1 et seq. (" the Act" ), against his former employer, Frisco Forest Products, LLC (" the employer" ); that complaint contained no demand for a trial by jury, because the Act provides that claims as to benefits available under the Act are to be decided by the trial judge sitting without a jury. See Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-89. In July 2011, the employee amended his complaint to add claims of negligence and wantonness against a number of third parties -- Fulghum Fibres, Inc. (" Fulghum" ); Alphonso Gross; Jeffrey Stanford; Bryan Madden; Robert Maxwell; John Straiton; and various fictitiously named defendants -- who, the employee alleged, had breached duties of care so as to have proximately caused the employee's purported workplace injury. In his amended complaint, the employee demanded a jury trial " of all issues ... which [we]re triable to a jury," and the trial court set the case for a jury trial to take place in August 2012.

         Before that trial took place, Stanford, Madden, Maxwell, and Straiton filed in July 2012 a motion for a summary judgment as to all claims asserted against them. A " memorandum of fact and law" was subsequently filed in support of that motion; however, that filing listed Fulghum and Gross as additional movants. The trial court entered an order on August 8, 2012, granting the motion as to Stanford, Madden, Maxwell, and Straiton, but it denied the motion as to all other defendants; however, the trial court did not direct the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., as to that partial summary judgment.

         The case then went to trial on the negligence claim[1] against Fulghum and Gross, with the employee and those defendants presenting evidence and arguments and the employer additionally participating by way of limited questioning and argument addressed to the location of the employee at the time his alleged injury occurred. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was given a verdict form containing the following textual groupings, setting forth three alternative findings:

" We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiff [employee] and against the defendants and assess the plaintiff's damages at $ .
" We, the jury, find for the plaintiff and against the following defendant(s):
" 1. Alfonso [sic] Gross
" 2. Fulghum Fibres, Inc. " and assess the plaintiff's damages ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.