Thompson v. White
274 Ala. 413, 149 So. 2d 797, 1963 Ala. LEXIS 711 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner or occupier of land abutting a public highway has a duty to not create or permit activities on or near the highway that create an unreasonable risk of harm to travelers. A driver's negligence in being distracted by such an activity is a foreseeable, concurring cause of an injury, not an independent intervening cause that absolves the landowner of liability.
Facts:
- Gulf Oil Corporation, Herman Vinson, and Lee Gore (Gulf defendants) were operating a newly opened filling station at the corner of an intersection on the Atlanta Highway.
- To promote the opening, the Gulf defendants arranged for clowns to perform at the location.
- The clowns, wearing costumes and waving items, performed on or very near the paved, traveled portion of the highway.
- A woman (plaintiff) was a passenger in a car being driven by her daughter along the Atlanta Highway.
- The vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding came to a complete stop for a red traffic light at the intersection where the clowns were performing.
- Lawson White was driving his car immediately behind the plaintiff's vehicle.
- While the plaintiff's vehicle was stopped, White's car collided with its rear, causing injury to the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued driver Lawson White and the Gulf defendants (Gulf Oil, Vinson, and Gore) in a state trial court for negligence and wanton misconduct.
- The trial court sustained the Gulf defendants' demurrers (motions to dismiss) to counts alleging the clowns performed 'near' the highway, but allowed a count alleging they were 'on' the highway to proceed.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence at trial, the court granted an affirmative charge (directed verdict) in favor of the Gulf defendants on all remaining counts.
- The court also granted a directed verdict for defendant White on the wanton misconduct count.
- The jury considered only the negligence claim against White and returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $5,000.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama, challenging the dismissal of the claims against the Gulf defendants and the wantonness claim against White.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do business owners who hire performers to conduct distracting activities on or near a public highway breach a duty of care owed to travelers, making them potentially liable for an accident caused by a distracted driver?
Opinions:
Majority - Coleman, Justice
Yes. Business owners who conduct distracting activities on or near a public highway can breach a duty of care to travelers and may be held liable for resulting accidents. The court reasoned that every property owner has a common law duty to use their property so as not to unreasonably interfere with or create unnecessary danger for others, including those lawfully using an adjacent highway. Given evidence that the clowns were on the paved portion of the road and were distracting, a jury could reasonably infer that their performance distracted defendant White and was a proximate cause of the collision. The court further held that White's negligence in being distracted would be a foreseeable, concurring cause, not an independent intervening cause that would insulate the Gulf defendants from liability. Therefore, the question of the Gulf defendants' negligence should have been submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision expands the scope of premises liability to include distracting activities that affect travelers on adjacent public roads, not just physical conditions on the property itself. It establishes that a business can be held liable for creating a foreseeable visual distraction that contributes to a vehicle collision. The court's holding that a driver's negligence is a concurring, rather than superseding, cause is crucial, as it prevents businesses from easily escaping liability by blaming the distracted driver entirely. This precedent holds businesses accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their promotional activities near high-traffic areas.
Unlock the full brief for Thompson v. White