Garrie v. Summit Treestands, LLC
Decision Date | 30 April 2010 |
Docket Number | 2080164. |
Parties | Joe F. GARRIE v. SUMMIT TREESTANDS, LLC. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Thomas P. Willingham and Mary Leah Miller of Alvis & Willingham, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.
James R. Shaw, Chris S. Rodgers, Jacob W. Crawford, and Lauren E. Davis of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
On Application for Rehearing
This court's opinion of August 21, 2009, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
The plaintiff, Joe F. Garrie, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Summit Treestands, LLC ("Summit"), in this action seeking damages for injuries sustained when Garrie fell from a tree stand manufactured by Summit.
On January 31, 2003, Garrie was hunting in a 1998 model "Viper" tree stand manufactured by Summit. Garrie's son had purchased the tree stand for Garrie at a store owned by Wiley Outdoor Sports, Inc. The tree stand is a two-part "climbing" tree stand, i.e., the hunter uses the tree stand to climb the tree from which he hunts. The top half of the tree stand appears to consist of the seat used by the hunter; the bottom half is the platform on which the hunter's feet rest.1 The top half and the bottom half of the tree stand are connected by a rope or tether. The tree stand appears to be of the type in which each half of the tree stand attaches to the tree by use of an adjustable part that wraps around the tree. The adjustable part is secured around the tree in such a manner as to allow enough room to maneuver the tree stand up and down the tree while climbing. When the hunter climbs the tree, the platform of the tree stand attaches by straps to the hunter's boots. The straps have rubber bands that fit around the hunter's heels. With the hunter's feet secured to the platform, the hunter climbs up or down the tree by lifting the platform with his feet a short distance either up or down, then applying pressure by pressing down, thus securing the platform to the tree. The top half of the tree stand is operated in a similar fashion.
Garrie's tree stand was equipped with a safety belt designed to prevent falls. On one end, the safety belt fits around the hunter's body somewhere under the hunter's shoulders. The other end of the safetybelt attaches to the tree. On the day he fell, Garrie was not using the safety belt. Garrie testified that he used the safety belt for two hunting seasons when he first starting using the tree stand. Garrie stated that he stopped using the safety belt because he had heard stories about hunters "getting smothered to death and hung with [the safety belts]." Garrie also testified that he did not believe the safety belt was designed to be used while climbing up or down the tree with the tree stand.
Garrie testified that, after hunting in his tree stand during the afternoon of January 31, 2003, he began to climb down the tree using the tree stand. Garrie testified that he had climbed down the tree four or five feet when one of his feet became disengaged from the foot strap on the platform. Garrie stated that the tree stand consequently "dropped down on the side." Garrie testified that, while attempting to get his foot back into the foot strap, he slipped and fell to the ground. The fall broke Garrie's back and rendered him paraplegic. Garrie was subsequently treated at DCH Regional Medical Center ("DCH"). The medical records of Garrie's treatment at DCH indicate that he had stated that "he became ill and had a syncopal episode while hunting" on the day he fell.
On December 29, 2004, Garrie sued Summit and Wiley Outdoor Sports, Inc. ("Wiley Outdoor"), alleging (1) claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD") for the manufacture and sale of a defective and unreasonably dangerous tree stand, (2) negligence, (3) wantonness, (4) negligent failure to warn, (5) wanton failure to warn, (6) breach of express warranty, and (7) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Summit and Wiley Outdoor each filed a motion for a summary judgment. In Summit's summary-judgment motion, Summit asserted (1) "that [Garrie] failed to present substantial evidence of a design or manufacturing defect in the tree stand as is required in order to establish a claim under the AEMLD"; (2) "[that Garrie did] not offer substantial evidence of a safer, practical, alternative design as required under the AEMLD"; (3) "[that Garrie] failed to present any expert testimony to support the allegations contained in his complaint"; (4) "[that Summit was] entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as a result of [Garrie's] contributory negligence"; and (5) that Garrie's negligence and wantonness claims were subsumed by his AEMLD claim. Summit supported its summary-judgment motion with various evidentiary materials, including expert testimony indicating that the tree stand is not defective or unreasonably dangerous. Garrie filed a response to Summit's summary-judgment motion, which was supported by various evidentiary materials, including expert testimony indicating that the tree stand is defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Wiley Outdoor, and the trial court certified that judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Garrie did not appeal from that judgment. The trial court subsequently entered a summary judgment in Summit's favor. Garrie filed a postjudgment motion, which was denied by operation of law. Garrie filed a timely appeal to the supreme court, and the supreme court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975.
On appeal, Garrie makes several arguments. We first address Garrie's argument that his negligence and wantonness claims were not subsumed by his AEMLD claim. That is, we must determine whether the negligence, wantonness, and AEMLD claims should be evaluated as separate claims or whether they should be evaluated as a single claim under the AEMLD. As noted, Summit asserted in its summary-judgment motion that Garrie's negligence and wantonness claims were subsumed by his AEMLD claim. In arguing that the negligence and wantonness claims were subsumed by the AEMLD claim, Summit cites Veal v. Teleflex, Inc., 586 So.2d 188 (Ala.1991), and federal cases. However, in Vesta Fire Insurance Corp. v. Milam & Co. Construction, 901 So.2d 84 (Ala.2004), our supreme court addressed Veal and explained that negligence and wantonness claims are not subsumed by an AEMLD claim. The supreme court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. Abernathy Motorcycle Sales, Inc.
...the product must be affirmatively shown.' Townsend v. General Motors Corp., 642 So.2d 411, 415 (Ala.1994)." Garrie v. Summit Treestands, LLC, 50 So. 3d 458, 464 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). The question of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is for the trier of fact to decide. Koehring Cr......
-
Garrison v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
...2003) (explaining that "[i]n an AEMLD case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving a design defect"); Garrie v. Summit Treestands, LLC , 50 So.3d 458, 464–66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (affirming summary judgment on an AEMLD claim when plaintiff failed to show the existence of a specific, alter......
-
Looney v. Moore
...the defect, the utility of the alternative design outweighed the utility of the design actually used.Garrie v. Summit Treestands, LLC, 50 So. 3d 458, 465 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (quoting Beech v. Outboard Marine Corp., 584 So. 2d 447, 450 (Ala. 1991)) (internal quotations omitted). Based on t......
-
Taylor v. Strongbuilt, Inc.
...to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it [was] sold.Garrie v. Summit Treestands, LLC, 50 So.3d 458, 465 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Supreme Court of Alabama has also explained as follows:In orde......
-
The Limited Scope of Contributory Negligence in Aemld-crashworthiness Cases
...1331; Haisten, 648 So. 2d at 562.41. Id.42. 981 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 2007).43. Id. at 1114 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).44. 50 So. 3d 458, 467-68 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).45. Id. at 468.46. See Saint, 646 So. 2d at 568.47. 991 F. Supp. 1397 (M.D. Ala. 1997).48. 646 So. 2d 564 (Al......