Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bishop v. Poore

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 12, 1985No. 83-1005Published

1Dissent

I must respectfully dissent on two grounds. First, there is not a scintilla of evidence supporting the allegation of wantonness. Second, the damages issue concerns loss of earnings, not loss of earning capacity.

There is nothing in the evidence tending to show that the defendant was guilty of wanton conduct. The evidence in dispute is over whether the defendant looked in the direction of the oncoming plaintiff or not. This was enough to submit the issue of negligence to the jury, but this could not support a finding of wantonness. "Before a party can be said to be guilty of wanton conduct it…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Graves v. WildsmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
  2. Roberts v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1980
  3. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. SnoddySupreme Court of Alabama · 1984
  4. Norwood Hospital v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  5. United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. EasthamCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API