Beam v. Tramco, Inc.

23 Citing cases

  1. Spain v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp.

    872 So. 2d 101 (Ala. 2003)   Cited 88 times
    Permitting a breach of warranty claim in a product liability case where there was insufficient evidence that the products were in fact fit for their intended use

    Thus, the two-year limitation period for a claim for injury caused by a negligent or wanton act or omission would begin to run at the date of the first legally recognizable injury resulting proximately from the particular negligent or wanton act or omission alleged and proven. Because one of the essential elements of an AEMLD action is the sale of the product, Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995), the two-year limitation period for an AEMLD action does not begin until the date of the first legally recognizable injury caused by the specific product alleged and proven to have been the subject of an alleged and proven sale by the particular defendant. "[A] cause of action for damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods shall accrue when the injury occurs." § 7-2-725(2), Ala. Code 1975.

  2. Lyons v. Saeilo, Inc.

    5:21-cv-00043-LCB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2023)

    Under the AEMLD, a defendant will be liable “if it manufactures, designs, or sells an unreasonably dangerous product that reaches the consumer substantially unaltered and, because of its unreasonably dangerous condition, injures the consumer when it is put to its intended use.” Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995).

  3. Reed v. Tracker Marine, LLC

    574 F. Supp. 3d 1065 (N.D. Ala. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Stated differently, "a defendant will be liable ... if it manufactures, designs, or sells an unreasonably dangerous product that reaches the consumer substantially unaltered and, because of its unreasonably dangerous condition, injures the consumer when put to its intended use." Beam v. Tramco, Inc. , 655 So. 2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995). A product that is unreasonably dangerous is "one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer."

  4. Vigneulle v. Tahsin Indus. Corp.

    Case No.: 2:15-cv-02268-RDP (N.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2018)

    "To establish a prima facie case under the AEMLD, Plaintiff must show: (1) that [Defendant] manufactured, designed or sold a defective, unreasonably dangerous product; (2) that the product reached the consumer in substantially the same condition in which it was sold; and (3) that the product injured the consumer when it was put to its intended use." Browder v. Gen. Motors Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1280 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (citing Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So. 2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995)). "[A] defective product is one that is unreasonably dangerous, i.e., one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer."

  5. Browder v. General Motors Corp.

    5 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (M.D. Ala. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Granting summary judgment on certain claims because the plaintiff failed to show that the vehicle's seat back was reclined at the time of an accident

    See Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976). To establish a prima facie case under the AEMLD, Plaintiff must show: (1) that GM manufactured, designed or sold a defective, unreasonably dangerous product; (2) that the product reached the consumer in substantially the same condition in which it was sold; and (3) that the product injured the consumer when it was put to its intended use. Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995). "[A] defective product is one that is unreasonably dangerous, i.e., one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the parties."

  6. Robinson v. Ford Motor Co.

    967 F. Supp. 482 (M.D. Ala. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976). To establish a prima facie case under the AEMLD, a plaintiff must show the following: (1) that the defendant manufactured, designed or sold a defective, unreasonably dangerous product; (2) that the product reached the consumer in substantially the same condition in which it was sold; and (3) that the product injured the consumer when it was put to its intended use. Beam v. Tramco. Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995). According to the Beam Court, "a defective product is one that is unreasonably dangerous, i.e., one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the parties."

  7. Ala. Dep't of Revenue v. Greenetrack, Inc.

    No. 1200841 (Ala. Jun. 30, 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Declining to overrule precedent when the parties did not expressly ask this Court to do so

    "If the nonmovant fails to meet this burden, then a summary judgment must be entered in favor of the movant." Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 980 (Ala. 1995).

  8. Chedester v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft KG

    Civil Action 1:21-00447-KD-B (S.D. Ala. Sep. 7, 2023)

    Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995).

  9. Reaves v. Ford Motor Co.

    3:22-cv-0544-LCB (N.D. Ala. Feb. 23, 2023)

    (b) it is expected to, and did, reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.” Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995), quoting Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala.1976).

  10. Terry v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. (In re Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.)

    MDL NO. 2436 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 28, 2016)

    These opinions can help the jury determine whether the defendants appropriately warned of the risk of the acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure and/or designed Extra Strength Tylenol in a way that meets the reasonable expectations of a consumer.See, e.g., Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 131-34 (Ala. 1976); Atkins v. Am. Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134, 137-43 (Ala. 1976); Gurley By and Through Gurley v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 505 So.2d 358, 361 (Ala. 1987); Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995)(citing Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 133 (Ala. 1976); Entrekin v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 519 So.2d 447 (Ala. 1987)). IV. Defendants' Daubert Challenge to Dr. Plunkett