Carter v. Cantrell Machine Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1995 |
| Citation | 662 So.2d 891 |
| Parties | Freddie Lee CARTER v. CANTRELL MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 1940315. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Steven D. Tipler and Tom L. Larkin of Tipler Law Offices, Birmingham, for appellant.
Tom Burgess and Laura E. Proctor of London & Yancey, Birmingham, and Jack Criswell of Berlon & Trammell, Birmingham, for appellee.
The plaintiff Freddie Lee Carter appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Cantrell Machine Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Cantrell").
On January 3, 1992, Freddie Lee Carter, who was employed as an oiler in the maintenance department of the Gold Kist, Inc., plant in Trussville suffered permanent and severe injuries to his arm; Carter's arm was torn and lacerated when the electric motor of a machine that he was oiling, known as a "shaker table," began operating before he could properly replace a cover guard. Carter filed a workers' compensation claim, which was subsequently settled.
On December 30, 1993, Carter sued Cantrell, the company that Carter claimed had manufactured the machine, alleging, among other things, liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD"). On June 22, 1994, Gold Kist was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff. On July 20, 1994, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Cantrell. Carter appeals.
On a motion for a summary judgment, the movant has the burden to make a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Ala.R.Civ.P. See, also, Willingham v. United Ins. Co. of America, 642 So.2d 428 (Ala.1994), and the cases cited therein. Until the moving party has made such a showing, the burden does not shift to the opposing party to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Willingham, supra. In order to defeat a properly supported motion for a summary judgment, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence in support of his position. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Betts v. McDonald's Corp., 567 So.2d 1252 (Ala.1990). "Substantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).
To establish liability under the AEMLD, the plaintiff must show that he suffered an injury caused by one who sold a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff as the ultimate user or consumer; that the seller was engaged in the business of selling such a product; and that the product was expected to, and did, reach the user without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. Sapp v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 564 So.2d 418 (Ala.1990).
Carter argues that he presented substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cantrell sold to Gold Kist the shaker table that caused Carter's injuries. He therefore concludes that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Cantrell.
In support of its motion for a summary judgment, Cantrell presented the affidavit of Bobby Ray, an employee of Cantrell who fabricates all shaker tables sold by Cantrell. Ray stated that after he had personally inspected the machine that Carter alleges caused his injuries, he identified five substantial differences between that machine and the machines sold by Cantrell. Specifically, Ray noted these differences: (1) there was no evidence of a serial number plate on the frame of the machine such as would have been attached to a Cantrell machine; (2) there was no evidence that a full-length motor mount had ever been used on the Gold Kist machine that caused Carter's injuries, such as would have been used on a Cantrell machine; (3) that Cantrell machines used round rods welded to the frame, while the Gold Kist machine had square tubing; (4) that the Gold Kist machine did not use a full-length roller wheel cover, as Cantrell machines used, but used a series of shorter wheel covers; and (5) that the camshaft on the Gold Kist machine was only 10 1/4 inches long, while the camshaft of Cantrell machines ranged from 17 1/2 inches to as much as 20 1/2 inches long. Additionally, Ray stated that "[t]he 'stroke'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation
...but that claim is specifically directed at the "defendant Manufacturers," see Frost Cpt Count III ¶ 5. 47. Carter v. Cantrell Machine Co., Inc., 662 So.2d 891, 892 (Ala.1995) (internal citations 48. Ex Parte Michelin North America, Inc., No. 1990615(AHM), 2001 WL 29198, at * 3 (Ala. Jan. 12......
-
Tanksley v. Prosoft Automation, Inc.
...on summary judgment. Power Equip. Co. v. First Alabama Bank, 585 So.2d 1291, 1299 (Ala. 1991); Carter v. Cantrell Mach. Co., 662 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.1995) (plurality opinion) ("Documents submitted as exhibits to affidavits or otherwise must be admissible in evidence either as sworn or certi......
-
Page v. Cox & Cox, Inc.
...conclusory statements, and must contain information that allows more than speculative or conjectural inferences." Carter v. Cantrell Mach. Co., 662 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.1995) (citing Perry v. Mobile County, 533 So.2d 602 (Ala.1988)). The trial court concluded (and I agree) that the employee'......
-
Panayiotou v. Johnson
...on the ground that the documents were unsworn, uncertified, unauthenticated, and, therefore, inadmissible. See Carter v. Cantrell Mach. Co., 662 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.1995) ("The documents were not properly authenticated and, thus, they were inadmissible hearsay, which cannot be relied on to ......