Grimes v. Saban
173 So. 3d 919 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment is improper when there is a genuine issue of material fact, such as when parties provide conflicting testimony regarding who was the initial aggressor in a physical altercation where self-defense is claimed.
Facts:
- After a night of drinking, Sarah Grimes and Kristen Saban were at Saban's apartment with friends in the early morning of August 29, 2010.
- An argument began after Grimes told Saban to 'shut up'.
- Saban went to her bedroom, locked the door, and posted on her Facebook page, 'No one likes Sarah, Yayyyyy!'
- After seeing the post, Grimes went to Saban's locked bedroom door and banged on it, demanding the post be removed.
- Saban opened the door to show Grimes she had removed the post, at which point a physical altercation ensued.
- According to Grimes's testimony, Saban initiated physical contact by shoving Grimes, who then put a hand on Saban's throat to push her away, after which Saban punched Grimes in the face more than five times.
- According to Saban's testimony, Grimes initiated physical contact by putting both hands around Saban's throat, after which a mutual altercation of slapping and punching began.
- Grimes sustained injuries including a black eye, swelling, and bleeding that required a hospital visit.
Procedural Posture:
- Sarah Grimes sued Kristen Saban for assault and battery in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, a state trial court.
- Saban filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied.
- Saban later filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that she acted in self-defense.
- The trial court granted Saban's motion for summary judgment, concluding her actions were justified and that Grimes had failed to rebut the presumption of self-defense.
- Grimes, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama, with Saban as the appellee.
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 genuine issue of material fact exist regarding a claim of self-defense, precluding summary judgment, when the plaintiff and defendant provide conflicting deposition testimony as to who initiated a physical altercation?
Opinions:
Majority - Bryan, Justice.
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists, precluding summary judgment. When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this case, Grimes. Grimes's deposition testimony, in which she stated that Saban was the initial aggressor by shoving her first, directly contradicts Saban's account. This conflicting testimony creates genuine issues of material fact as to whether Saban reasonably believed the use of force was necessary, whether the degree of force she used was reasonable, and, most critically, whether Saban was the initial aggressor. Because these key facts are disputed, the question of self-defense cannot be decided as a matter of law and must be resolved by a fact-finder, such as a jury.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial on the merits when key facts are in dispute. It emphasizes that a plaintiff's own deposition testimony can constitute 'substantial evidence' sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion, particularly in tort cases involving claims of self-defense. The ruling clarifies that questions of credibility and disputed facts about who was the initial aggressor are classic jury questions. Consequently, this precedent makes it more difficult for defendants in assault and battery cases to win on summary judgment by claiming self-defense if the plaintiff can provide a coherent, contradictory account of the events.
Unlock the full brief for Grimes v. Saban