King v. S.R. Smith, Inc.
Decision Date | 26 April 1991 |
Citation | 578 So.2d 1285 |
Parties | Barbara Briant KING v. S.R. SMITH, INC., et al. 89-1704. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jere L. Beasley and Kenneth J. Mendelsohn of Beasley, Wilson, Allen, Mendelsohn & Jemison, Montgomery, for appellant.
Peter V. Sintz and Mark S. Gober of Sintz, Campbell, Duke, Taylor & Cunningham, Mobile, and William Mudd of McDaniel, Hall, Conerly & Lusk, Birmingham, for appellees.
Barbara Briant King, as administratrix of the estate of her son, Kenneth Halpern, filed an action under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) against S.R. Smith, Inc., and S.R. Smith Company, Inc., as well as other defendants not involved in this appeal. The parties have agreed that for purposes of this appeal the relationship of the companies is not an issue, and we refer to the companies together as "S.R. Smith." Ms. King claimed that S.R. Smith failed to warn of the danger associated with diving from a diving board that it manufactured and sold. The trial court entered a summary judgment for S.R. Smith and, pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., made the judgment final.
Ms. King's action was before this Court on an appeal from a summary judgment for another defendant in King v. National Spa & Pool Institute, Inc., 570 So.2d 612 (Ala.1990). In that case we stated the facts as follows:
The standard used to determine the propriety of a summary judgment is found in Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P.:
"The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
The burdens placed on the parties by this rule have often been described:
Schoen v. Gulledge, 481 So.2d 1094, 1096-97 (Ala.1985).
In determining whether there is substantial evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and resolves all reasonable doubts against the movant. Sanders v. Kirkland & Co., 510 So.2d 138 (Ala.1987).
Ms. King alleges that S.R. Smith failed to warn Mr. Halpern of the dangers associated with diving from its board into the pool. Under the AEMLD, if a manufacturer or seller places goods on the market that are imminently dangerous when put to their intended purpose and the defendant knows or should know that the goods can create danger when used in their customary manner, the defendant must exercise reasonable diligence to make such danger known to the persons likely to be injured by the product. Hawkins v. Montgomery Industries International, Inc., 536 So.2d 922 (Ala.1988); Gurley v. American Honda Motor Co., 505 So.2d 358 (Ala.1988); Cazalas v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 435 So.2d 55, 58 (Ala.1983).
S.R. Smith argues that it did "everything within its power to comply with its duty to warn," because, it argues, it places a warning sticker on each diving board sold that reads as follows: That warning sticker...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Industries
...jury's involvement produce a windfall for the plaintiff, whose recovery was reduced by ninety-six percent.See also King v. S.R. Smith, Inc., 578 So.2d 1285, 1287 (Ala., 1991) (reversing summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer who argued no duty to warn of the danger of diving from a div......
-
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...likely to be injured by the product." Cazalas v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 435 So.2d 55, 58 (Ala.1983). See King v. S.R. Smith, Inc., 578 So.2d 1285, 1287 (Ala.1991); Caudle v. Patridge, 566 So.2d 244, 247 (Ala.1990); Hawkins v. Montgomery Indus. Int'l, Inc., 536 So.2d 922, 927 (Ala.1988)......
-
In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation
...retailer without knowledge of product's danger may be liable simply for "the mere selling of a defective product"); King v. S.R. Smith, Inc., 578 So.2d 1285, 1287 (Ala.1991) (liability for failure to warn under AEMLD attaches only if defendant "knows or should know" of the product's 52. See......
-
Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...however, it merely needs to be the result of the “exercise [of] reasonable diligence” on the part of the defendant. King v. S.R. Smith, Inc., 578 So.2d 1285, 1287 (Ala.1991). Here, Radiator's attempt to prevail as a matter of law on the affirmative defense of assumption of risk falls short.......