Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., et al.
from Montgomery Circuit Court. (CV-08-00360).
Justice. Moore, C.J., and Stuart, Main, and Wise, JJ.,
concur. Bolin, Murdock, Shaw, and Bryan, JJ., dissent.
Rule 53(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
C.J., and Stuart, Main, and Wise, JJ., concur.
Murdock, Shaw, and Bryan, JJ., dissent.
McMahon v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 95 So.3d 769
(Ala. 2012) (" McMahon I" ), I concurred with
Justice Woodall's special writing dissenting from this
Court's reversal of the judgment as a matter of law
(" JML" ) on Jacklyn and Donald McMahon's
wantonness claim and concurring with the affirmance of the
judgment as to the other claims. 95 So.3d at 775 (Woodall,
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Consistent
with my position at that time -- that the trial court did not
err in entering a JML in favor of the Yamaha defendants on
the McMahons' wantonness claim -- I respectfully dissent
from the Court's decision today affirming the trial
court's judgment based on the jury verdict in favor of
Jacklyn McMahon on the wantonness claim. On remand, even the
trial judge, after hearing the evidence a second time,
expressed her disagreement with submitting the wantonness
claim to the jury:
" Okay. And, again, everyone knows we are back here
because the Supreme Court has instructed us that they believe
that there was a question on the wantonness which this court
completely disagrees with.
" I've sat through both trials. And, again, if this
was the first trial, I would be making the exact same ruling.
We wouldn't be going to the jury on that.
" However, that is not my job. I'm going to follow
the instructions of the Supreme Court which is they want it
to go to the jury on the ...