Hurst appealed a summary judgment in favor of the estate because, she said, based upon the facts of this case she was a passenger and not a guest under the Alabama Guest Statute at the time she sustained her injuries.  The Alabama Guest Statute provides as follows: 

• The owner, operator, or person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or death of a guest while being transported without payment therefor in or upon said motor vehicle, resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries or death are caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of such operator, owner, or person responsible for the operation of the motor vehicle. 

Ala Code § 32-1-2 

Hurst contended that she was a passenger because “if the rider accompanies the driver at the insistence of the driver for the purpose of having the rider confer a benefit or service to the driver on a trip to the primary objective of which is to benefit the driver, the rider is a ‘passenger for hire’ and not a ‘guest.’”  The Court agreed. 

Central to the Court’s opinion was the fact that the sole purpose of Hurst’s trip was to assist the driver with her elderly aunt: 

• When Ray had to take Williams shopping in preparation for Williams’s move to Ohio, she told Hurst that she “really needed” Hurst to go to the Wal-Mart store with her.  The purpose of Hurst’s accompanying Ray to the Wal-Mart store was to assist Ray with Williams while they were in the store shopping, by standing with Williams while Ray parked her automobile, and by providing whatever other assistance Ray might have needed with Williams. In fact, Hurst was injured as she got out of the vehicle at Ray’s direction that Hurst stand with Williams in the front of the Wal-Mart store while Ray parked the automobile. Hurst’s accompaniment of Ray to the Wal-Mart store to assist Ray with Williams conferred more than an incidental benefit to Ray - - it conferred a material and tangible benefit. 

Accordingly, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Hurst was a “passenger” and was not barred by the Alabama Guest Statute.

This case involved judicial redemption exercised by the appellee, Roberts, against the Surginers. The Surginers appealed because, they alleged, the trial court committed reversible error by failing to award them the proper cost of preservation improvements in the redemption amount Roberts was ordered to pay. 

Pursuant to § 40-10-83, “the court shall, on motion of the defendant made at any time before the trial of the action, ascertain … (iii) with respect to any property which contains a residential structure at the time of the sale regardless of its location … the value of preservation improvements made by the purchaser determined in accordance with Section 40-10-122.”  (emphasis added).  Pursuant to § 40-10-122(e), Ala. Code 1975, “the appropriate court shall proceed to ascertain the true value of such permanent or preservation improvements as applicable” if the parties fail to follow the procedure in § 40-10-122(d). 

The trial court found that the parties failed to follow the correct procedure, and therefore appointed an independent appraiser to value any alleged improvements. The appraiser found that the potential fire and safety hazards created by the “improvements” negatively impacted the subject property’s value due to the poor craftsmanship.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and held that the Surginers were not entitled to payments for “improvements” to the property.