Dentson v. Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1986 |
| Citation | 491 So.2d 942 |
| Parties | , 33 Ed. Law Rep. 1292, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,090 Boncile DENTSON, et al. v. EDDINS & LEE BUS SALES, INC., et al. 85-12. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert D. Segall of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, Montgomery, Edward B. Raymon of Raymon, Nathanson & Raymon, Fred D. Gray of Gray, Langford, Sapp, Davis & McGowan, Tuskegee, for appellants.
Thomas T. Gallion III, Thomas J. Travers of Gallion, Gallion & Wilkerson, Montgomery, for appellees Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc.
Tabor R. Novak, Jr., Richard E. Broughton of Ball, Ball, Duke & Matthews, Montgomery, for appellee Blue Bird Body Company, Inc.
This is a products liability/breach of warranty case, and is a case of first impression.
The specific issue is: Should the manufacturer of a bus used for "transportation of pupils" as provided for in Code 1975, § 16-27-1, et seq., install passenger seat belts in the vehicle? Because of the nature of the particular facts of this case, and the fact that the legislature has enacted legislation "[t]o promote safe transportation of pupils to and from schools and in school related activities," we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action, and that the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
On October 12, 1984, plaintiffs, public school children, were injured in Lee County when the school bus in which they were passengers collided with another vehicle. Plaintiffs sued, inter alia, Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc., the school bus dealer, and Blue Bird Body Company, Inc., the school bus manufacturer. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint: (1) that defendants breached the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD") by manufacturing and selling an unreasonably dangerous school bus, and (2) that defendants breached an implied or express warranty of merchantability by manufacturing and selling a defective school bus.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds, inter alia, that plaintiffs had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under either the AEMLD or the theory of breach of implied or express warranty. The trial court granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs' lawsuit. Plaintiffs appeal.
As we have already pointed out, we believe that in order to address the issue here on appeal, we must necessarily consider the fact that the legislature has taken affirmative action to govern and regulate the transportation of school children in Chapter 27 of Title 16, Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-27-1, et seq. The provisions of Code 1975, § 16-27-6, are particularly pertinent:
Because the legislature mandated that school buses be equipped with a seat belt for the driver, the question we must answer is whether the legislature debated and considered the question of passenger seat belts for school buses, and excluded them from its regulatory scheme involving pupil safety.
As is apparent from a reading of § 16-27-6, the legislature has provided that every school bus being operated in the state must be equipped with a seat belt for the driver, and has mandated that the bus driver, while operating the vehicle, wear the seat belt, but has not imposed a similar requirement for passengers.
Section § 16-27-6 is one of seven sections that comprise Chapter 27 of Title 16, the "Education" title in our Code. Chapter 27 is entitled "Transportation of Pupils." Its purpose, as gleaned from the legislative history, is
"[t]o promote safe transportation of pupils to and from schools and in school related activities; to direct the state board of education to prescribe certain rules and regulations designed to promote this purpose; to provide for school transportation managers or supervisors; to prescribe certain equipment for school buses; to provide for safety inspection of school buses; to provide for special training and licensing of school bus drivers; and to prescribe penalties." 1969 Ala. Acts No. 281.
Defendants argued to the trial court and to this Court that the legislature, by specifically requiring that school buses be equipped with seat belts for the driver, necessarily considered such a requirement for school bus passengers, and elected not to require them, and that this Court should hold that the legislature intended that no seat belts for school bus passengers would be required. We have no legislative history to indicate whether the legislature, before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Volvo North America Corp.
...Volvo, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause. 3 Our affirmance is compelled by this Court's holding in Dentson v. Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc., 491 So.2d 942 (Ala.1986). After careful consideration, we reaffirm our holding in Dentson. Even if we were to overrule Dentson (which we do ......
-
Edwards v. Basel Pharmaceuticals
...F.2d 148 (5th Cir.1990); Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167, 176 (1993); Dentson v. Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, 491 So.2d 942, 944 (Ala.1986).13 See Comment e, § 7, RESTATEMENT (THIRD), supra note 11.14 See, e.g., Shebester v. Triple Crown Insurers, 974 F.2d......
-
Attocknie v. Carpenter Mfg., Inc.
...federal law required them to install seatbelts in the bus. In support, Carpenter cited 70 O.S.1991, § 9-109 and Dentson v. Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc., 491 So.2d 942 (Ala.1986). The Appellants' cause of action is grounded both in negligence and in manufacturer's product liability. They mai......
-
Ala. Powersport Auction, LLC v. Wiese
...were legislatively preempted as a cause of action by § 16–27–6, Ala.Code 1975,2 as interpreted by this Court in Dentson v. Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc., 491 So.2d 942 (Ala.1986).”47 So.3d at 245. The trial court “entered a partial summary judgment in favor of IC and ITEC ‘with respect to an......