Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Walker v. Capstone Building Corp.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 16, 2012No. 1090966Published

1ConcurrenceMain, Justice

I concur in the main opinion. I write to note that the main opinion should not be interpreted as holding that trespass no longer has a field of operation in tort claims. Rather, the main opinion holds that trespass is not equivalent to wantonness.

As I see it, the basic distinction between “negligence,” “wantonness,” and “trespass” is explained as follows: Essentially, “negligence” is akin to “careless.” See Hornady Truck Line, Inc. v. Meadows, 847 So.2d 908, 915 (Ala.2002) (“ ‘ “Negligence” is defined as “refer[ring] only to that legal delinquency which results whenever a man fails to exhibit…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Martin v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  2. Bozeman v. Central Bank of the SouthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  3. Galaxy Cable, Inc. v. Davis ex rel. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 2010
  4. Stone v. SOUTHLAND NAT. INS. CORP.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991
  5. Hornady Truck Line, Inc. v. MeadowsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API