Caudle v. Patridge

• Decision Date: 27 July 1990
• Citation: Caudle v. Patridge, 566 So.2d 244 (Ala. 1990)
• Parties: Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,569 Michael Carmen CAUDLE v. Bill PATRIDGE, d/b/a Off-Road Birmingham, and Eastwood Ford, Inc. 89-161.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 244

566 So.2d 244

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,569

Michael Carmen CAUDLE v.Bill PATRIDGE, d/b/a Off-Road Birmingham, and Eastwood Ford, Inc.

89-161.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 27, 1990.

Barry W. Hair of Hogan, Smith, Alspaugh, Samples & Pratt, Birmingham, for appellant.

Bibb Allen and Richard E. Smith of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for appelleeBill Patridge, d/b/a Off-Road Birmingham.

William A. Scott, Jr. and Amy K. Myers of Clark & Scott, Birmingham, for appelleeEastwood Ford, Inc.

STEAGALL, Justice.

PlaintiffMichael Carmen Caudle appeals from summary judgments in favor of defendantsBill Patridge, d/b/a Off-Road Birmingham, and Eastwood Ford, Inc., in his products liability suit against them.¹At issue is a "conversion kit" sold by Patridge, which was used to convert a 1973 Ford Courier truck from two-wheel drive to four-wheel drive; the truck was later traded and Eastwood Ford subsequently sold the truck as modified.Caudle was severely injured when the truck flipped over while he was a passenger in it.

Michael McCullars initially purchased the truck in 1982 and spoke with Patridge, the operator of a business known as Off-Road Birmingham, shortly thereafter about converting the truck's driving mechanism.Pursuant to their conversation, Patridge ordered a conversion kit from Low Manufacturing, Inc.²After receiving the kit, Patridge opened it, with McCullars, to make sure all of the parts were present.The service manual that came with the kit contained this admonition:

"Please read this catalog carefully before purchasing Low Manufacturing Inc. products; you must be aware that the weight, height, center of gravity and the handling of your vehicle will be effected [sic] by the installation of some of the products herein."

Patridge advised McCullars on how to install the kit and discussed with him the tools necessary for the installation.

Aside from the conversion, McCullars also replaced the truck's four-cylinder engine with a Ford 302-cubic inch V-8 engine.After he completed all of the modifications, McCullars took the truck by Off-Road Birmingham, as Patridge had asked him to do, so that someone there could "[look] up under it."McCullars drove the truck approximately 2,000 miles and then traded it to Eastwood Ford, an automobile dealership, in February 1984.

Later that month, Eastwood Ford sold the truck to James Jones"as is."Jones sold the truck to Gary Jackson on May 24, 1984.On the date of the accident, Jackson and Caudle were traveling on Interstate Highway 65 when Jackson began experiencing mechanical difficulty with the truck.After he placed the truck's transmission in neutral, the truck began skidding diagonally to the left toward the median.While in the skid, a left tire blew out and the truck flipped over twice.As a result of the crash, Caudle suffered permanent brain damage and permanent total paralysis.

In his order entering summary judgment for Patridge, ³ the trial judge stated:

"The Court is just not convinced under the totality of the circumstances of this case that our law imposes a duty upon the Defendant in this case to warn the person who was a passenger in the complained of vehicle almost three years after the sale of the subject conversion kit which the Plaintiff contends caused his injury.Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that the evidence supports the Defendant's contention that [he] merely acted as a conduit for the sale of the subject conversion kit by Low Manufacturing to Michael McCullars and that such a limited involvement in the transaction places no duty on the Defendant to warn the Plaintiff, Michael Caudle, almost three years later."

(Emphasis added.)

At issue is the propriety of the summary judgments in favor of Eastwood Ford and Patridge.The counts of Caudle's complaint pertinent to this appeal are: 1) negligent failure to warn--a claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine; 2) negligence and wantonness in the sale of the conversion kit; and 3) breach of an express warranty and breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.Caudle argues that Patridge and Eastwood Ford had a duty to provide a warning somewhere in the truck regarding the truck's altered handling characteristics due to the conversion and specifically to warn that such vehicles are more prone than standard vehicles to flip because of the change in the center of gravity.

Initially, we find it irrelevant that Caudle was a passenger in the truck three years after the conversion.Caudle need not have purchased the kit to have a cause of action (due to the abolition of the privity of contract requirement), because he was obviously a person who could foreseeably be injured by virtue of his presence in the truck as a passenger.

Prior to the enunciation of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (hereinafter the "AEMLD") in Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128(Ala.1976), andAtkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134(Ala.1976), recovery in products liability cases was limited to recovery against manufacturers.However, Casrell expanded the manufacturer's liability doctrine of earlier cases to include not only the manufacturer but also the supplier and seller.In qualifiedly adopting the concept of strict liability contained in § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Atkins held that, in order to establish liability "(1)A plaintiff must prove he suffered injury or damages to himself or his property by one who sold a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff as the ultimate user or consumer, if

"(a) the seller was engaged in the business of selling such a product, and

"(b) it was expected to, and did, reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

"(2) Having established the above elements, the plaintiff has proved a prima facie case although

"(a) the seller had exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and

"(b) the user or consumer had not bought the product from, or entered into any contractual relation with, the seller."

335 So.2d at 141.Thus, there was a shift in emphasis from the seller's conduct to the defective nature of the product.

A few years later, this Court fully reviewed the plaintiff's burden of proof in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haven Hills Farm, Inc., 395 So.2d 991(Ala.1981), and emphasized that it is not enough to show that the product failed to perform its intended use and that the plaintiff was injured.The plaintiff must show that the product was unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendant's control, that it...