Cannon v. Sears Roebuck and Co et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 9/22/14. (SAC )

Download PDF
FILED 2014 Sep-22 PM 04:15 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION WAYNE CANNON, Plaintiff, v. SEARS ROEBUCK & CO., et al., Defendants. } } } } } } } } } CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-01560-WMA MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the court on a motion to dismiss by defendant Sears Roebuck and Co. and defendant Ortill, Inc. alleging plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for damages for mental anguish or emotional distress. In Alabama, mental anguish damages “are subject to strict scrutiny if the plaintiff ha[s] not suffered any physical injury,” however where plaintiff suffers physical injuries, the “principle . . . does not apply” and the degree of damages is left to the discretion of the jury. Daniels v. E. Alabama Paving, Inc., 740 So. 2d 1033, 1044 (Ala. 1999). Further, while generally mental anguish damages are not recoverable arising from breach of contract, Alabama courts have excepted from this general rule recovery for such damages arising under a breach of warranty theory of products liability. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Dillard, 579 So. 2d 1301, 1304 (Ala. 1991). In this case, plaintiff alleges damages for emotional distress and mental anguish under both a theory of physical, personal injury and a theory Factually, of breach plaintiff of alleges warranty in “[e]xtreme products mental liability. anguish and emotional distress” after being “struck below the right eye by a fragment of the hand held sledge hammer he was using.” (Doc. 1, Ex. A at 2-3). For the purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts plaintiff’s well-pled facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor. Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007). Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint contains factual allegation[s] sufficient to plausibly suggest” a claim upon which recovery for damages for emotional distress or mental anguish may be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 683 (2009). Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED. DONE this 22 day of September, 2014. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?