Deere & Co. v. Grose
| Decision Date | 23 August 1991 |
| Citation | 586 So.2d 196 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,957 DEERE & COMPANY and John Deere Company v. Ruth Annette GROSE, as administratrix of the Estate of Derwood M. Grose, deceased. 89-1576. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Michael D. Knight of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston, Mobile, for appellants.
Forrest S. Latta of Barker & Janecky, and Dennis J. Knizley and Arthur T. Powell III of Knizley & Powell, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
Ruth Annette Grose, as administratrix of the estate of her husband, Derwood M. Grose, filed an action against John Deere Company and Deere & Company (we refer to both of those defendants as "Deere") and Foley Implement Company ("Foley"). Derwood Grose died when his Deere Model 820 tractor, which he was operating on the bank of his fish pond, turned over sideways 180 degrees and landed on him. Pursuant to the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD"), Ms. Grose alleged, among other claims, that the tractor was not crashworthy and thus was designed defectively because of Deere's failure to provide as standard equipment a roll-over protective structure ("ROPS") for the tractor; she also alleged that Deere had wantonly or negligently failed to warn adequately of the dangers associated with the use of the tractor. She alleged various claims against Foley, which had sold Mr. Grose the tractor.
At the end of Ms. Grose's case, Deere moved for a directed verdict; the trial court granted that motion as to Ms. Grose's wantonness claims but denied it as to the other claims. Deere and Foley moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. The trial court submitted Ms. Grose's AEMLD claim and her negligent-failure-to-warn-adequately claim to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Foley and entered a $500,000 general verdict against Deere. Deere moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
We first address Ms. Grose's negligent-failure-to-warn-adequately claim. The necessary elements for recovery under a negligence theory are duty, breach of that duty, proximate causation, and injury/damage. Rutley v. Country Skillet Poultry Co., 549 So.2d 82, 85 (Ala.1989). Accordingly, Ms. Grose must prove that Deere failed to warn adequately of the dangers associated with the use of the tractor and that its failure to do so proximately caused the injury of which she complains. Specifically, as concerns proximate cause, a negligent-failure-to-warn-adequately case should not be submitted to the jury unless there is substantial evidence that an adequate warning would have been read and heeded and would have prevented the accident. Gurley v. American Honda Motor Co., 505 So.2d 358, 361 (Ala.1987); E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Cox, 477 So.2d 963, 970-71 (Ala.1985).
We have carefully reviewed the record of the evidence produced by Ms. Grose. She produced no evidence at all that an "adequate" warning would have been read and heeded and would have prevented the accident. Gurley; E.R. Squibb & Sons.
At most, Ms. Grose testified that Mr. Grose was not familiar with tractors and was not experienced with farm machinery or farming. An expert for Ms. Grose testified that the warning provided by Deere in the owner's manual was inadequate; the expert said:
Although the evidence presented by Ms. Grose and the expert may have established a duty and a breach of that duty, it fails even to address proximate cause, much less prove it by substantial evidence. Gurley; E.R. Squibb & Sons.
Deere's motion for directed verdict made at the close of Ms. Grose's case challenged her prima facie case of negligent-failure-to-warn-adequately. Because Ms. Grose failed to produce substantial evidence of proximate cause in her negligent-failure-to-warn-adequately claim, the trial court erred when it denied Deere's motion for a directed verdict on that claim at the end of Ms. Grose's case.
In order for Ms. Grose to prevail on her AEMLD claim, she must prove, among other things, that she "suffered injury or damages ... [caused] by one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff as the ultimate user or consumer." Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Ford, 406 So.2d 854, 855 (Ala.1981); Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala.1976). The term "defective" means that the product fails to meet the reasonable safety expectations of an "ordinary consumer," that is, an objective "ordinary consumer," possessed of the ordinary knowledge common to the community. Ex parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d 975, 978 (Ala.1983); Casrell, at 133.
The evidence indicates that Mr. Grose was the third owner of the tractor, which was manufactured in 1972 and sold in 1973. Deere presents no defense concerning alteration of the tractor.
The evidence is undisputed that when the tractor was manufactured, Deere had considerable information concerning the likelihood that tractors of this model would turn over and the frequency of such accidents, that Deere was aware that the absence of a roll bar created an enhanced chance of serious injury or death in the event of a roll-over, that roll bars were technologically feasible when this tractor was manufactured, and that Deere had actually developed a roll bar for the Model 820 tractor in 1967 and sold that roll bar as an option instead of as a standard feature. Deere itself, as well as Ms. Grose, presented evidence indicating all of the above, and it also produced additional evidence from which it asks us to make several rulings as a matter of law, which would have the effect of preventing Ms. Grose's AEMLD claim from being submitted to the jury.
First, Deere argues that, as a matter of law, the tractor, when it was sold with a ROPS as optional equipment, met the reasonable expectations concerning crashworthiness of an ordinary consumer who purchased the tractor with ordinary knowledge common to the community. Although some of the testimony Deere presented concerning the reasonable expectations of consumers in the community addressed such expectations at the time of the trial and was therefore inapposite, Deere also presented some evidence that the tractor met the reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers in 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...are: 1) no causal relation; 2) assumption of the risk; and 3) contributory negligence (misuse of the product)."). See Deere & Co. v. Grose, 586 So.2d 196, 199 (Ala.1991); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. J.B. Plastics, Inc., 505 So.2d 1223, 1227 (Ala.1987); Dunn v. Wixom Bros., 493 So.2d 1356,......
-
Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 652 So.2d 211, 217 (Ala.1994); Bean v. BIC Corp., 597 So.2d 1350, 1353–54 (Ala.1992); Deere & Co. v. Grose, 586 So.2d 196, 199 (Ala.1991). Here, however, the Court has found, as a matter of federal law, that the Liquid Wrench product had the warnings required u......
-
Terry v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. (In re Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.)
...must show that the warning provided was defective or inadequate in order to establish this breach of duty. See Deere & Co. v. Grose , 586 So.2d 196, 198 (Ala.1991).i. Adequacy of Warning The defendants argue that the plaintiff has not offered sufficient evidence to show that a different, mo......
-
Gougler v. Sirius Products, Inc.
...Order, however, "a jury will normally determine the dangerousness of a product." Tillman, 871 So.2d at 32; see also Deere & Co. v. Grose, 586 So.2d 196, 199 (Ala.1991) (declaring that evidence did not support holding as a matter of law that warning obviated danger of the product, and that t......