Dairyland Ins. Co. v. General Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1989 |
| Citation | 549 So.2d 44 |
| Parties | 9 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 903, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,281 DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY and Mack Sullivan v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and Massey Chevrolet, Inc. 88-57. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
G.B. McAtee of Stokes & McAtee, Mobile, for appellants.
Richard T. Dorman and Patricia P. Ponder of Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon & Harris, Mobile, for appellee Gen. Motors Corp.
Philip H. Partridge and Michael P. Windom of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Mobile, for appellee Massey Chevrolet, Inc.
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
The evidence before the trial court tended to show the following: Mack Sullivan purchased a new 1986 General Motors van from Massey Chevrolet, Inc. (hereinafter "Massey") on October 17, 1985. Shortly thereafter, Sullivan began having trouble with the lights on the van; they would blink on and off. Sullivan took the vehicle to Massey on May 16, 1986, to have Massey correct the problem with the lights. Sullivan states that he told Ray Shipp of Massey that the problem was with the entire lighting system. Shipp testified that Sullivan told him only that the interior dome light was causing problems. The repair order notes a complaint only about the dome light, and Roland Frank, an employee of Massey, did repair work only on the dome light. On May 25, 1986, the vehicle caught fire while Sullivan was driving it; Sullivan was not injured, but the van was totally destroyed. Sullivan made a claim with his insurance carrier, Dairyland Insurance Company (hereinafter "Dairyland"), and his claim was paid. Dairyland hired Gary Venz to inspect the vehicle; Venz is a senior fire investigator for Systems Engineering Associates, Inc., but he has no expertise in the wiring of motor vehicles. Venz reported that the fire originated as a result of some shorting of wiring underneath the dashboard area, near the steering On March 16, 1987, Sullivan and Dairyland, as subrogee of Sullivan, filed a five-count complaint against General Motors Corporation (hereinafter "GM") and Massey, alleging negligence on the part of GM in the manufacture of the vehicle, breach of express warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability, negligence on the part of GM, negligence on the part of Massey in repairing the vehicle, and a cause of action under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine against both GM and Massey. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all counts.
column, but that the heavy damage prevented a determination as to what caused the malfunction. In a deposition, Venz testified that he did not have an opinion as to what may have caused the wiring to malfunction. In a later affidavit, Venz stated that the cause of the fire was the shorting out of the electrical system underneath the dashboard.
Dairyland and Sullivan contend that there was a scintilla of evidence of a defect in the vehicle and, thus, that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment as to the warranty claims. Because this action was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla rule" applies to our review of the trial court's judgment. Dairyland and Sullivan have produced at least a scintilla of evidence that there was a defect in the vehicle that caused the fire. Plaintiffs' expert Venz testified that there was an electrical short some place under the dashboard and that that short caused the fire. Thus, the entry of summary judgment was incorrect as to the claims for breach of warranties.
The negligent manufacture claims and the claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine are controlled by this Court's recent decision in Lloyd Wood Coal Co. v. Clark Equipment Co., 543 So.2d 671 (Ala.1989). It has been widely recognized that one cannot recover in tort for damage to the product itself:
C. Gamble & D. Corley, Alabama Law of Damages, § 32-8, 339 (1982). "[A] manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either a negligence or strict products-liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself." East River Steamship Corp. v. TransAmerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 871, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 2302, 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986) (). "When a product injures only itself the reasons for imposing a tort duty are weak and those for leaving the party to its contractual remedies are strong." Id. In Lloyd Wood Coal, we adopted the United States Supreme Court's reasoning in East River. Therefore, the entry of summary judgment was correct as to the claim under the AEMLD and the negligent manufacture claims.
As to the claim that Massey was negligent in its repair of the vehicle, however, we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs did produce a scintilla of evidence. Sullivan stated that he told Shipp that the problem was with all the lights on the van; Shipp says that Sullivan talked only of the dome light. Frank stated that if a customer was complaining about all the lights blinking on and off, then the proper way to test for that problem would be to check the ground system of the vehicle, which is located underneath the dashboard near the steering column. While there is no evidence that the repairs done to the dome light had any connection to the fire, the plaintiffs have presented at least a scintilla of evidence that Massey's failure to check the entire lighting system, and particularly the ground system, was negligence that proximately caused this fire. Under the evidence before the trial court, the issues For the above reasons, the summary judgment is affirmed as to the negligent manufacture and AEMLD claims, but is reversed as to the warranty claims and the claim for negligent failure to repair, and this cause is remanded for a trial on those issues.
of whether Sullivan actually told Massey that the problem was with all the lights and whether Massey could have found the wiring problem and repaired it so that this fire would not have occurred are issues for resolution by a jury. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting Massey's motion for summary judgment as to the claim for negligent failure to repair.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
...a contract rather than a tort action.' " Wellcraft Marine v. Zarzour, 577 So.2d 414, 418 (Ala.1990) (quoting Dairyland Ins. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 549 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala.1989)). The availability of warranties, statutory duties imposed on sellers, the consumer's ability to inspect goods......
-
Continental Ins. v. Page Engineering Co.
...also follows the East River rule, Lloyd Wood Coal Co. v. Clark Equipment Co., 543 So.2d 671 (Ala.1989); Dairyland Ins. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 549 So.2d 44 (Ala.1989). The fourth state which may follow the same persuasion, or at least the dissent in the case thinks so, is Texas through......
-
Alloway v. General Marine Industries, L.P.
...the Court held that the "rule remains the same, regardless of the nature of the consumer." Ibid.; see also Dairyland Ins. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 549 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala.1989) (holding that consumer purchaser of defective van could not recover economic In Casa Clara, supra, 620 So.2d 124......
-
Stanton v. Bayliner Marine Corp.
...cites several land-based cases which have applied East River to noncommercial facts. 5 For example, in Dairyland Ins. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 549 So.2d 44 (Ala.1989), the Alabama Supreme Court applied East River to deny recovery in tort to a consumer buyer of a General Motors van which......
-
Conning the IADC newsletters.
...for such injury may be obtained through the available contractual remedies"); and Dairyland Insurance Co. v. General Motors Corp., 549 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala. The Ohio Supreme Court in Chemtrol Adhesives Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 537 N.E.2d 624, 635 (Ohio 1989), applie......