Martin v. Goodies Distribution
695 So.2d 1175, 1997 WL 283758 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Internal safety guidelines or operating procedures for employees do not, by themselves, constitute a voluntarily assumed legal duty to protect third parties from hazards, especially when such procedures are not advertised to the public or relied upon by the injured party.
Facts:
- Terrance Martin, age seven, purchased ice cream from Robert King, the driver of a Goodies Distribution ice cream truck.
- After the purchase, Terrance attempted to cross the street to return home.
- From a position in front of the ice cream truck, Terrance stepped into the street to look both ways before crossing.
- Terrance looked to his right and was struck by an automobile driven by Sherry Hope Hudson as he turned to look to his left.
- Terrance suffered multiple fractures in one leg as a result of the collision.
- Goodies Distribution provided its drivers, including King, with 'OPERATING PROCEDURES' which included instructions like 'Cross all kids under 8 years old' and 'Teach safety to all kids.'
- There was no evidence that Goodies advertised these safety procedures to the public to increase business or that Terrance or his mother actually relied on Goodies to ensure his safety when he crossed the street.
Procedural Posture:
- Terrance Martin, by and through his mother Serena Martin, sued Sherry Hope Hudson and Goodies Distribution in a negligence action in state trial court.
- Terrance filed an amended complaint alleging that Goodies Distribution was liable for his injury, claiming it was caused by negligence on the part of Robert King, an agent of Goodies.
- The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Goodies Distribution.
- The trial court made the summary judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P.
- Terrance appealed the summary 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:
Did Goodies Distribution voluntarily assume a legal duty to protect child patrons from vehicular traffic hazards by including safety precautions in internal operating procedures for its ice cream truck drivers, which were not advertised to the public or relied upon by the injured child?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, Goodies Distribution did not voluntarily assume a legal duty to protect child patrons from vehicular traffic hazards. The court first addressed the issue of agency, finding that Terrance presented substantial evidence that King was an agent of Goodies due to the high degree of control Goodies exercised over King's work (e.g., leasing the truck, specific safety and operational training, assigned territory, personal observation, control over receipts, non-compete clause, termination policies). Therefore, summary judgment could not be based on King being an independent contractor. However, the court then determined that while a party can voluntarily assume a duty, Goodies' act of including safety precautions in its internal operating procedures for drivers did not amount to the voluntary assumption of a legal duty to the public. The court emphasized that there was no evidence that Goodies advertised these safety procedures to the public as a means of increasing business or that Terrance, or his mother, was actually relying on Goodies to ensure his safety when he crossed the street. Since Goodies had no legal duty to assist Terrance in safely crossing the street, it could not be held liable for a breach of such a duty.
Concurring in result - Almon, J.
Justice Almon concurred in the result, meaning he agreed with the ultimate outcome of affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of Goodies Distribution, but not necessarily with the specific reasoning articulated by the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for voluntarily assumed duty in Alabama, particularly in the context of internal company policies. It establishes that for internal operational guidelines to create a legal duty, there must be an external manifestation, such as public advertisement or reliance by the injured party. The ruling limits the scope of liability for businesses whose internal safety protocols are not publicly disseminated or acted upon by consumers. This decision implies that companies are generally not liable for failing to adhere to internal policies unless those policies are communicated to and relied upon by the public, influencing how businesses structure and communicate their safety standards.
