Creel v. Crim
2001 WL 1021001, 812 So. 2d 1259 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who trespasses on land in good faith at the direction of another party, who appeared to have authority, is entitled to full, not partial, indemnity for any resulting damages from the directing party.
Facts:
- Tisia Baker Lovelady hired Glenn Creel of Creel Tree Service to cut timber on her property.
- Lovelady instructed Creel on the location of her property's boundary lines and directed him where to cut trees.
- Relying on Lovelady's instructions, Creel cut down trees that were actually located on the adjacent property owned by Forest R. Crim.
- Creel did not intend to cut trees on Crim's property and operated under the good faith belief that he was working on Lovelady's land based on her representations.
- After learning of the error, Creel signed a handwritten statement apologizing for the "over cut" and explaining that he had simply done what he was told to do.
Procedural Posture:
- Forest R. Crim sued Tisia Baker Lovelady and Glenn Creel in an Alabama trial court for trespass and removal of trees.
- Creel filed a cross-claim against Lovelady, seeking indemnification for any damages he might be ordered to pay Crim.
- After an ore tenus proceeding where the judge viewed the property, the trial court found Creel liable to Crim for $5,400.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Lovelady on Crim's direct claim against her.
- On Creel's cross-claim, the trial court ordered Lovelady to pay Creel $2,700, representing partial indemnity.
- Creel, as appellant, appealed the judgment against him and the partial indemnity award to the Court of Civil Appeals 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:
Is a trespasser who acted in good faith under the mistaken direction of another party entitled to full indemnification for all damages paid, rather than only partial indemnification?
Opinions:
Majority - Murdock, J.
Yes, a trespasser who acted in good faith under the mistaken direction of another is entitled to full indemnification. The common law principle of indemnity shifts the entire burden of loss from one party to another, making the measure of recovery 'all or nothing.' The trial court correctly determined that Creel was entitled to indemnity from Lovelady because he acted innocently based on her misrepresentations about the property line. However, the court erred by awarding Creel only partial indemnity ($2,700 of the $5,400 in damages). The long-standing exception to the rule forbidding indemnity among co-trespassers applies when a party acts in good faith without knowledge of the wrongdoing, and that exception requires a complete shifting of the loss. Therefore, Creel is entitled to recover the full amount of damages he was ordered to pay.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the 'all or nothing' nature of common law indemnity in Alabama, distinguishing it from contribution, which allows for apportionment of fault. It solidifies the legal principle that when the exception for an innocent co-trespasser applies, a court cannot apportion the damages based on perceived fault. The ruling provides significant protection for contractors and agents who must rely on a principal's or property owner's representations, ensuring that if they act in good faith on incorrect information, the entire financial liability can be shifted to the party who provided that information.
