Walker v. Capstone Building Corp.
Supreme Court of Alabama
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
- Martin v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
- Bozeman v. Central Bank of the SouthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
- Galaxy Cable, Inc. v. Davis ex rel. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 2010
- Stone v. SOUTHLAND NAT. INS. CORP.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991
- Hornady Truck Line, Inc. v. MeadowsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.