Edmonds v. Conway Courier Service Inc et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER- For the reasons stated within, the deft's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc 16 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Staci G Cornelius on 9/17/18. (MRR, )

FILED
2018 Sep-17 AM 10:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGENA EDMONDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONWAY COURIER SERVICE, INC. d/b/a
CCS Transportation, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01373-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1
Pending before the undersigned is an unopposed motion for partial summary judgment
filed by the defendants, Conway Courier Service, Inc. d/b/a/ CCS Transportation (“CCS”) and
Delbert Reed (“Reed”) (collectively, the “defendants”).

(Doc. 16).

The defendants seek

judgment in their favor on the claims of wantonness asserted against them by the plaintiff,
Regena Edmonds (“Edmonds”). (Id.). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is due to be
granted.
I. Facts
On August 25, 2015, Reed was driving a tractor-trailer for CCS on Hopewell Road in
Bessemer, Alabama when he missed his turn into a brickyard he had not been to before. (Doc.
16-1 at 5, 7-8). He stopped, set his air brake, turned on his four-way flashing lights, and checked
his mirrors. (Id. at 9-10). He did not see anything behind him and proceeded to back up. (Id. at
10).

Edmonds, who was stopped two car-lengths behind Reed, honked and unsuccessfully

attempted to reverse her 2001 Honda Civic. (Id. at 14-17). The rear of the Reed’s tractor-trailer
collided with the front bumper of Edmonds’ vehicle. (Id. at 16-17).
1

The parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 9).

Edmonds commenced an action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama,
Bessemer Division, asserting claims for negligence and wantonness against Reed and seeking to
hold CCS liable for this conduct under the theory of respondeat superior. (Doc. 1-1 at 14-17).
The defendants timely removed the action to this district court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. (Doc. 1).2
II. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A

district court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all
reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s favor.

Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112,

1115 (11th Cir. 1993). A district court cannot grant summary judgment merely because a motion
seeking it is unopposed. United States v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th
Ave., Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). The court must consider the merits of
the motion, ensuring it is supported by evidentiary materials. Id.
III. Discussion
Under Alabama law, “wantonness” is “the conscious doing of some act or omission of
some duty while knowing of the existing conditions and being conscious that, from doing or
omitting to do an act, injury will likely or probably result.” Ex parte Essary, 992 So. 2d 5, 9
(Ala. 2007) (emphasis in original). The undisputed facts show Reed missed a turn on a road that
was not familiar to him and then backed up his tractor-trailer after taking precautions to satisfy
himself no car was behind him. Although he was mistaken in his belief no car was behind him,
2

Edmonds is a citizen of Alabama, CCS is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of
business in Arkansas, Reed is a citizen of Arkansas, and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. (Doc. 1 at 3-6). Therefore, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.

his conduct does not rise to the level of wantonness. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment is due to be granted as to Edmonds’ wantonness claim against Reed.
Under Alabama law, an employer may be liable for the intentional torts of its agent if the
employer participated in, authorized, or ratified the wrongful acts. Jones Exp., Inc. v. Jackson,
86 So. 3d 298, 304 (Ala. 2010).
underlying tortious conduct of its agent.

Proof of the employer’s liability requires proof of the
Id. at 304-05. Because Edmonds’ wantonness claim

against Reed fails, her attempt to hold CCS liable for Reed’s wantonness under the theory of
respondeat superior must fail, as well. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for partial summary
judgment is due to be granted as to Edmonds’ wantonness claim against CCS on the ground of
respondeat superior.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc.
16) is GRANTED.
DONE this 17th day of September, 2018.

______________________________
STACI G. CORNELIUS
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE