# JOE HUDSON COLLISION CENTER v. Dymond

> Supreme Court of Alabama · December 30, 2009 · 40 So. 3d 704

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783420

## Case

- **Full name:** JOE HUDSON COLLISION CENTER, Joe Hudson, and Traweek Dickson v. Blake DYMOND; Kenneth Stringfellow v. Blake Dymond
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 30, 2009
- **Citations:** 40 So. 3d 704; 30 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 171; 2009 Ala. LEXIS 301; 2009 WL 5173504
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Woodall
- **Judges:** Parker, Cobb, Lyons, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, Shaw, Woodall
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783420

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that it was “immaterial whether the agreement was explained to” the plaintiff because “[a]s a competent and literate adult, he [wa]s responsible for the contracts that he ma[de]”
- concluding that, an arbitrator decides issues of substantive arbitrability when the arbitration provision incorporated. the same AAA- rule as in the present case
- concluding that an arbitrator decides issues of substantive arbitrability when the arbitration provision incorporated the same AAA rule as in the .present case
- reversing a judgment denying a motion to compel arbitration by a supervisor who had allegedly assaulted the plaintiff because the complaint described the supervisor as “acting in the line and scope of his employment”
- noting that an arbitration agreement incorporating the AAA rules clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability questions to the arbitrator

## Opinion text

WOODALL, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the main opinion, but I write to clarify that Kenneth Stringfellow, in both the trial court and this Court, has adequately argued that Ex parte Rush, 730 So.2d 1175 (Ala.1999), supports his claim that his status as an employee of Joe Hudson Collision Center allows him to enforce the arbitration agreement. As noted in the main opinion, Dymond’s objections to the motions to compel arbitration did not include any challenge to Stringfellow’s standing to enforce the arbitration agreement, and Dymond has filed no brief in this Court. Therefore, I question whether it is necessary for this Court to address the issue of Stringfellow’s standing to enforce that agreement. However, I certainly agree that, under the facts of this case, he had standing to do so.
COBB, C.J., and LYONS, J., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783420. Public record. Not legal advice.