Valerie Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Plaintiff Valerie Smith (“Smith”) filed a complaint against Wells Fargo alleging that she had visited a Wells Fargo branch in Birmingham; that an employee had instructed her to sit in a chair; and that the chair collapsed, causing her injuries. Specifically, she asserted claims of negligence, wantonness, failure to maintain the premises in a safe condition, failure to warn, negligent and wanton hiring, training, and supervision, and respondeat superior. Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the seating capacity of the chair constituted an “open and obvious danger” to Smith in relation to her size, and also that Wells Fargo had no knowledge that the chair would constitute a “dangerous condition.” Wells Fargo’s summary judgment motion was granted.  

On appeal, Smith argued that she was an invitee of Wells Fargo, and that the trial court erred in not submitting the question of whether she was an invitee to the jury. However, Wells Fargo proceeded in its motion for summary judgment as though Smith had been an invitee of the bank. Accordingly, the appellate court found no error. Smith next argued that whether the chair presented an “open and obvious danger” and whether Wells Fargo had knowledge of the defective condition of the chair were questions for the jury. The Court noted that Wells Fargo argued that Smith “recognized and anticipated the open and obvious danger posed by the chair’s size in relation to hers” and that it could not be liable for her injuries “when the danger should have been perceived in the exercise of reasonable care.”  

In her deposition, Smith testified that she “had not put her weight on, or her rear into, the chair before it collapsed” and “that the chair had fallen apart once she put her hand onto it.” Smith further testified that the chair appeared stable before she attempted to sit in it. Based on her testimony, the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that “genuine issues of material fact remain[ed] as to whether the danger presented in the present case was open and obvious and whether Smith appreciated the danger of any defect.” Accordingly, the Court held that entry of summary judgment on Wells Fargo’s open and obvious defense was improper, and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

Boaz City School Board v. Kevin Stewart

On April 8, 2015, the superintendent of the Boaz school system notified teacher Kevin Stewart (“Stewart”) that termination of his employment would be recommended due to Stewart’s work at a pawn shop while on paid medical leave from the Boaz school system. After an ore tenus proceeding, the school board voted to terminate Stewart’s employment. Stewart filed an appeal, and the hearing officer issued an order determining that the school board’s action was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the board’s decision “was due to be reversed.” The school board appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals from the hearing officer’s order.  

Relevant portions of the school board’s applicable policy manual provided: “Abuse of sick leave may subject the employee to disciplinary action;” “Employees will not engage in outside business activities or render any service for another employer during such time as duties and responsibilities have been assigned by the board;” and “Employees will not accept outside employment that would interfere with or impair the ability of the employee to perform duties as a Board employee effectively.” Stewart worked as an agricultural-science teacher at Boaz High School since 2001. In 2015, Stewart and two other individuals formed a corporation called “Sand Mountain Pawn and Outdoors, Inc.” Soon thereafter, Stewart submitted an “absence authorization” from his chiropractor that stated Stewart was under his care and recommending Stewart be excused for a period of several months. During Stewart’s absence, another employee observed Stewart working at the pawn shop. Upon obtaining this information, the superintendent sent Stewart notice of his recommendation to terminate Stewart’s employment, and also notified him of his right to request a hearing. At the hearing, evidence revealed that Stewart was a “near-constant fixture at the pawn-shop business’s location” during the period of time he was away from his teaching position at Boaz High School.  

After concluding Stewart’s conduct in using sick leave was a “misrepresentation or suppression of his ability to work for the board,” the Court of Civil Appeals found that the decision of the school board to terminate Stewart’s employment was proper, and remanded to the hearing officer with instructions to affirm the board’s decision.