Clark v. Kindley - No. 2050829, 2007 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 93 (Civ. App. Feb. 9, 2007)

Rule:

When reviewing a ruling on a motion for a judgment as a matter of law (JML), an appellate court uses the same standard the trial court used initially in granting or denying a JML.

Facts:

A driver sued a mechanic, seeking damages arising from a traffic accident. The Franklin Circuit Court entered a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the mechanic on the driver's wantonness claim. A jury then returned a verdict in favor of the mechanic on the driver's negligence claim. The driver appealed.

Issue:

Did jury err in granting verdict in favor of the mechanic on the driver’s negligence claim?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The judgment was affirmed as to the negligence claim, and reversed as to the wantonness claim. The case was remanded for a new trial on the issue of wantonness. The Court held that Kindley's extremely slow speed was a violation of the "Rules of the Road" was prima facie evidence of negligence, and a factor in causing the collision. Thus, if any, in failing to charge the jury on coasting was harmless because it did not injuriously affect Clark's substantial rights.