Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lee v. Econo Auto Painting & Body Works, Inc.
Citations: 549 So. 2d 494; 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 136; 1989 WL 41150Docket: Civ. 6681
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; April 26, 1989; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Cheryl Collier Lee filed a complaint for breach of contract and malicious prosecution against Econo Auto Painting, Body Works, Inc., and Franklin H. Womble, Jr. The trial resulted in a jury verdict favoring Lee, awarding her $316.42. Lee's motion for a new trial was denied, leading to her appeal. Lee argued that the trial judge made errors in providing certain jury instructions requested by Econo and failed to communicate specific definitions to the jury. However, these issues were not preserved for appellate review due to Lee's failure to object to the trial court’s jury instructions before the jury began deliberations, as required by Rule 51 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Lee’s lack of objection means any alleged errors in jury instructions are waived. Additionally, Lee contended that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the evidence and law; the court disagreed, reinforcing that jury verdicts are presumed correct, especially when a new trial motion is denied. The jury's general verdict did not specify the basis for liability, but it is accepted that a general verdict can be tied to any count supported by evidence. Lee's breach of contract claim met this criterion, leading to the court affirming the jury's verdict. The decision was unanimous among the judges.