Waldron v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Waldron v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.

551 So. 2d 1044, 1989 Ala. LEXIS 687, 1989 WL 138369

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 29, 1989

Docket88-331

StatusPublished

This text of 551 So. 2d 1044 (Waldron v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waldron v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 551 So. 2d 1044, 1989 Ala. LEXIS 687, 1989 WL 138369 (Ala. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

KENNEDY, Justice.

The plaintiff, Dale Waldron, appeals the summary judgment in favor of Commercial Union Insurance Company (“Commercial Union”) in her action seeking damages for injuries she sustained at her place of employment, Enterprise Electronics, Inc.

The issue is whether the plaintiff presented a scintilla of evidence supporting any issue of fact that would permit submission of her claim to the trier of fact. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Waldron alleged that Commercial Union negligently and/or wantonly failed to perform safety inspections and negligently failed to find, and/or to advise her employer to correct unsafe and dangerous conditions.

On June 7, 1984, Commercial Union, through its agent, George L. Reeves, conducted a single voluntary property, cargo, workmen’s compensation, and product risk survey for Enterprise Electronics. On October 24, 1984, Waldron tripped and fell over some loose cable and wire that cluttered the floor near her work station.

Under Alabama law, a workmen’s compensation carrier may be liable when it voluntarily undertakes to inspect an employer’s premises for safety. Fireman’s Fund American Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 394 So.2d 334, 338 (Ala.1980). Beasley v. MacDonald Engineering Co., 287 Ala. 189, 249 So.2d 844 (1971). In a suit of this nature, “a plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) that the [insurer] had a duty, or assumed a duty by voluntarily undertaking the inspection; (2) the scope of that duty; (3) whether the duty was breached; (4) whether there was damage or injury; and (5) whether the injury was proximately caused by that breach.” Barnes v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 472 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Ala.1985).

There was no evidence that the loose cable or wire was cluttering the floor on the day on which the inspection was conducted. There was also not a scintilla of evidence presented to indicate that the safety inspection was negligently performed or that any negligence on the part of Commercial Union proximately caused Waldron’s injuries.

We, therefore, conclude that Waldron failed to present a scintilla of evidence that she was injured as a result of a negligent inspection by Commercial Union. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that [1045]*1045there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and we hereby affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KENNEDY, Justice.

The plaintiff, Dale Waldron, appeals the summary judgment in favor of Commercial Union Insurance Company (“Commercial Union”) in her action seeking damages for injuries she sustained at her place of employment, Enterprise Electronics, Inc.

The issue is whether the plaintiff presented a scintilla of evidence supporting any issue of fact that would permit submission of her claim to the trier of fact. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Waldron alleged that Commercial Union negligently and/or wantonly failed to perform safety inspections and negligently failed to find, and/or to advise her employer to correct unsafe and dangerous conditions.

On June 7, 1984, Commercial Union, through its agent, George L. Reeves, conducted a single voluntary property, cargo, workmen’s compensation, and product risk survey for Enterprise Electronics. On October 24, 1984, Waldron tripped and fell over some loose cable and wire that cluttered the floor near her work station.

Under Alabama law, a workmen’s compensation carrier may be liable when it voluntarily undertakes to inspect an employer’s premises for safety. Fireman’s Fund American Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 394 So.2d 334, 338 (Ala.1980). Beasley v. MacDonald Engineering Co., 287 Ala. 189, 249 So.2d 844 (1971). In a suit of this nature, “a plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) that the [insurer] had a duty, or assumed a duty by voluntarily undertaking the inspection; (2) the scope of that duty; (3) whether the duty was breached; (4) whether there was damage or injury; and (5) whether the injury was proximately caused by that breach.” Barnes v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 472 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Ala.1985).

There was no evidence that the loose cable or wire was cluttering the floor on the day on which the inspection was conducted. There was also not a scintilla of evidence presented to indicate that the safety inspection was negligently performed or that any negligence on the part of Commercial Union proximately caused Waldron’s injuries.

We, therefore, conclude that Waldron failed to present a scintilla of evidence that she was injured as a result of a negligent inspection by Commercial Union. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that [1045]*1045there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and we hereby affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 1044, 1989 Ala. LEXIS 687, 1989 WL 138369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldron-v-commercial-union-insurance-co-ala-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack