Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Moore v. Clark
Citations: 548 So. 2d 1352; 1989 WL 67560Docket: 88-605
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; May 12, 1989; Alabama; State Supreme Court
In the case of Geraldine F. Moore v. James Edward Clark, the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed an appeal following a jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit. The jury found in favor of plaintiff Geraldine Moore but awarded no damages, prompting her to seek a new trial based on the inadequacy of damages and inconsistencies between the jury's liability finding and its damage award. The trial judge denied her motion. The court referenced the precedent set in Stinson v. Acme Propane Gas Co., which established that a jury's finding of liability for the plaintiff, coupled with an award of no damages, is inherently inconsistent. In Moore's case, she had been struck from behind by Clark's vehicle while driving in a funeral procession and presented evidence of injuries, pain, lost wages, and damage to her car. While the jury acknowledged her injury by finding in her favor, awarding no damages contradicted their liability determination. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, citing the inconsistency in the jury's verdict. Justices concurred in the judgment of reversal but differed on the nature of the remand; Chief Justice Hornsby and Justice Houston supported a remand for the trial court to set an appropriate damages award rather than an unconditional new trial.