Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co.
Decision Date | 23 March 1979 |
Citation | 369 So.2d 781 |
Parties | Phillip Mark ANDREWS v. JOHN E. SMITH'S SONS COMPANY, etc. 78-47. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Johnnie B. Byrd, Jr., of Caffey & Byrd, Brewton, for appellant.
Bert S. Nettles and J. Harley McDonald, Jr., Mobile, for appellee.
William D. Melton, Evergreen, amicus curiae.
Andrews appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant, Hobam, Inc., also referred to as John E. Smith's Sons Co., a division of Hobam, Inc. We affirm.
Andrews, an employee of Conecuh Quick Freeze, had his right arm amputated below the elbow following an accident at his place of employment in May, 1976. He was stuffing ground beef into a commercial meat grinder with his hand when it was caught and pulled into the grinding mechanism.
Suit was filed against "John E. Smith's Sons Co., a division of Hobam, Inc., a corporation" with service on Hobam, Inc. Count One was based on the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine and Count Two (which was struck) sounded in warranty. Here we are concerned only with the propriety of summary judgment for the defendant on Count One, which reads in its entirety:
Through discovery it was learned that the meat grinder was manufactured and sold by John E. Smith's Sons Co., a close corporation, probably in 1949. The grinder did not have a guard over the opening to prevent feeding meat with the hand, nor did it have a stomper or mallet with which to feed and stuff the grinder, although other grinders marketed at the time by Smith Co. had these safety features.
In 1962 Smith sold substantially all its assets for cash, including accumulated good will, orders, repair contracts, and services to Hobam, Inc., who styled themselves "John E. Smith's Sons Co., a division of Hobam, Inc., since 1868." Two members of the Smith family retired at the sale, but otherwise the business operation of the company remained the same, with the same physical plant and employees. The sale included a non-competition agreement and there was no participation in management decisions or profits by the predecessor corporation after 1962. Hobam received all patents, including one on the grinder in question and the safety devices used on similar models. Within the last several years Hobam has sold replacement parts to Conecuh Quick Freeze for this particular meat grinder.
After the transfer of assets the predecessor corporation changed its name to 66 Highland Ave., Inc., by amending its Certificate of Incorporation, and it continued in existence De facto as well as De jure until it was liquidated in 1975. Under the terms of the purchase agreement 66 Highland Ave., Inc., specifically retained liability for all products liability claims on machines sold prior to June 30, 1962. 66 Highland Ave., Inc., continued to maintain product liability insurance until June, 1977, to cover claims arising over this machinery. The coverage was in effect at the time of Andrews' accident. Upon obtaining this information regarding the sale of assets Andrews substituted 66 Highland Ave., Inc., as a defendant. It appears, however, that the plaintiff has been unable to serve this corporation. No other amendments to the complaint were made.
Andrews presents three theories to attack the summary judgment: (1) Hobam is liable as the supplier of component replacement parts for a defectively designed machine; (2) Hobam is liable for failure to warn third persons of obvious defects of which it was aware in its predecessor corporation's product; and (3) Hobam is liable for defects in its predecessor's product since Hobam is a mere continuation of the original manufacturer.
Andrews' first theory misconstrues the concept of liability for defective component parts. Under Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala.1976), and Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala.1976), a manufacturer who uses component parts in manufacturing or assembling a product for sale as a complete unit may be liable under appropriate circumstances where the defect is in a component part. But Hobam is not in this instance manufacturing products in this fashion. It has simply made replacement parts which were not alleged to be defective in themselves. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. Abbott Laboratories
...approach to product liability. See, Tift v. Forage King Indus., Inc., 108 Wis.2d 72, 322 N.W.2d 14 (1982); Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781 (Ala.1979). Rather than expand a rule designed for other purposes, the California Supreme Court developed an exception for successor ......
-
TRACEY BY TRACEY v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co.
...N.E.2d 792, 795 (1st Dist. 1983); Nieves v. Bruno Sherman Corp., 86 N.J. 361, 431 A.2d 826, 832-33 (1981); Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781, 784-85 (Ala.1979); Wilson v. Fare Well Corp., 140 N.J. Super. 476, 356 A.2d 458, 467-68 23 McCollister testified that he was aware t......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Edwards
...Casrell, supra, and Atkins, supra, and, since that time, it has been applied against manufacturers of machinery, Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781 (Ala.1979); airplanes, First National Bank of Mobile v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 365 So.2d 966 (Ala.1978); and automobiles, Jett v.......
-
Nissen Corp. v. Miller
...We do not agree that traditional rules of successor liability should be "shaken off" as "impediments." Id. In Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781 (Ala.1979), the plaintiff had his right arm amputated after it was caught and pulled into a meat grinder. The meat grinder was man......
-
Restatement Third, Torts: Products Liability; what hath the ALI wrought?
...App. Lexis 29703 (dismissing failure to warn claim where risk was known danger). (37.) See, e.g., Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781, 785 (Ala. (38.) Tucker v. Paxon Machine Co., 645 F.2d 620, 625 (8th Cir. 1981) (discussing these four factors). (39.) Larson v. General Motor......
-
CHAPTER § 6.04 Successor Liability for Pre-Acquisition Conduct of a Subsidiary
...of the previous enterprise.'") (footnote omitted) (citation omitted).[185] See: Alabama: Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781 (Ala. 1979). Mississippi: Bouchillon v. SAME Deutz-Fahr, Grp., 268 F. Supp.3d 890, 901 n.14 (N.D. Miss. 2017) ("The Mississippi Supreme Court has chara......