Dolgencorp, LLC v. Spence, [Ms. 1150124, Sept. 30, 2016] __ So.3d __ (Ala. 2016). The Court reverses the judgment of the Autauga Circuit Court entered on a $100,000 jury verdict for Spence in her claims against Dolgencorp (Dollar General) for false imprisonment, assault and battery, invasion of privacy, negligent training, malicious prosecution, and defamation arising out of an incident at a Dollar General store in Prattville where Spence was alleged to have shoplifted mineral oil and hair spray. The Court finds substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict on the assault and battery claim (Ms. *14-16), negligent-training claim (Ms. *16-19), false-imprisonment claim (Ms. *19-23), but fails to find substantial evidence of malice to support the malicious-prosecution claim (Ms. *23-30) or actual malice to support her defamation claim (Ms. *30-34). Because the Court cannot presume that the verdict was based solely upon the good counts, i.e., the claims that were supported by the evidence, a new trial on the claims supported by the evidence is required pursuant to Cook's Pest Control v. Rebar, 28 So.3d 716 (Ala. 2009). Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Jackson, 906 So.2d 143 (Ala. 2005), and Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United Inv'rs Life Ins. Co., 875 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2003).
Related Documents: Dolgencorp v Spence