Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale

Supreme Court of Alabama · Torts

TortsNegligenceContributory NegligenceJury InstructionsPremises Liabilitysole proximate causeconcurring negligenceproximate cause

Facts

Shepherd alleged that she suffered serious physical injuries when, while walking on a public sidewalk at a street corner, she tripped over a raised concrete slab forming the foundation of Gardner Wholesale's building. The slab rose three or four inches above the level of the sidewalk and joined the angle formed by the intersecting sidewalks. The evidence was disputed as to whether the raised slab extended onto the public sidewalk or remained on Gardner Wholesale's property. At trial, the court gave several written charges requested by the defendant, including charges requiring the defendant's negligence to be the sole proximate cause, charges on contributory negligence omitting proximate contribution, a charge about use of sight on a sidewalk, and a charge based on invitee status.

Issue

Whether the trial court committed reversible error by giving jury instructions that required the defendant's negligence to be the sole proximate cause, that treated any lack of reasonable care by the plaintiff as contributory negligence without requiring proximate contribution, and that assumed the plaintiff was an invitee on the defendant's premises despite a factual dispute about where she fell. The appeal also raised whether allowing a preliminary cross-examination question about the plaintiff's son's employment was error.

Rule

In negligence cases, a defendant is liable if its negligence is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, even if it concurs with another efficient cause other than the plaintiff's fault; the defendant's negligence need not be the sole proximate cause. A contributory-negligence instruction is fatally defective if it directs a verdict against the plaintiff without hypothesizing that the plaintiff's negligence proximately contributed to the injury, and such error is not cured by correct oral or other written instructions. A jury charge is also erroneous if it assumes as true a disputed fact rather than conditioning the instruction on the jury being reasonably satisfied of that fact from the evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Maya Ellison sued Desert Span Hardware after she was injured when a loose metal awning above the store fell at the same moment a delivery driver's cart struck the same support post. The evidence would permit the jury to find that both the store's poor maintenance and the driver's conduct contributed to the collapse.

If the trial judge instructs the jury that Maya can recover only if Desert Span Hardware's negligence was the sole proximate cause of her injury, what is the best analysis?

Explanation. A negligence instruction requiring the defendant's negligence to be the sole proximate cause misstates the law. The majority explained that liability may exist when the defendant's negligence concurs with one or more efficient causes other than the plaintiff's fault. The store would not be exonerated merely because another actor also helped produce the injury. (Derived from Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale (n.d.).)