Allen v. Bannister
210 Ala. 264, 97 So. 820, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 239 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant may be held liable for special damages, such as the loss of a growing crop, if the plaintiff's abandonment of the crop was the proximate result of the defendant's assault and threats and was a reasonably prudent course of action.
Facts:
- Bannister was a tenant upon Allen's land and had a growing crop.
- A personal difficulty occurred between Bannister and Allen.
- During the difficulty, Allen threatened Bannister with a pistol and told him that if he came on the place again, he would kill him.
- The day after the difficulty, Allen instituted a prosecution against Bannister, which led to Bannister being put in jail.
- The prosecution against Bannister was investigated, ended, and Bannister was discharged.
- As a proximate result of Allen's assault and threat, Bannister abandoned his growing crop.
Procedural Posture:
- Bannister sued Allen in state trial court, alleging assault and battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.
- The trial court entered judgment for Bannister in the sum of $1,000.
- Allen moved for a continuance and asked to make a showing for two absent witnesses; the trial court denied both requests.
- Allen requested a general affirmative charge for Count 3 (malicious prosecution) due to a lack of specified damages; the trial court refused this charge.
- Allen appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff have a valid claim for special damages, specifically the loss of a growing crop, when the plaintiff abandoned the crop as a proximate and reasonably prudent result of an assault and threat by the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - SAYRE, J.
Yes, a plaintiff may recover damages for the loss of a growing crop if the abandonment was the proximate and reasonably prudent result of the defendant's assault and threats. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance or allow a showing for absent witnesses, noting that the defendant had been in attendance and the showing should have been ready. The court also held that Count 3 of the complaint, which alleged damages for malicious prosecution without specifying an amount, was sufficient to justify the assessment of nominal damages, thus making the refusal of the general affirmative charge non-reversible error. Furthermore, the court stated that it was not error for the trial court to assume and state undisputed facts to the jury. Critically, the court determined that if Allen's threat was the 'proximate moving cause' of Bannister’s abandonment of his crop, and if such abandonment was a 'course of reasonable prudence,' then the 'present value of the crop' constituted a recoverable element of damages.
Analysis:
This case establishes that a tortfeasor's liability extends beyond immediate physical harm to include economic losses incurred as a reasonably prudent, defensive response to their wrongful acts. It clarifies that proximate causation is not limited to direct injury but can encompass consequential damages arising from a victim's necessary actions to mitigate risk posed by the defendant's tortious conduct. The ruling broadens the scope of recoverable damages in tort, emphasizing that victims can seek compensation for losses that are a direct, foreseeable result of a defendant's intimidation or threats, even if the victim's own actions (like abandoning property) are the immediate cause of the loss, provided those actions were reasonable.
