Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. Lyons v. Saeilo, Inc.

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

    However, “[w]hen a defect created by an alteration to a product after it left the seller's control is the factual and proximate cause of an injury, and the alteration was not foreseeable, the alteration amounts to an intervening or superseding cause of the injury and relieves the seller from liability under the AEMLD.” Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 867 (Ala. 1994). In Kirk, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment because the removal of the protective shield from an auger was a substantial change that relieved the seller from liability for injuries caused when the worker's leg became entangled in the auger.

  2. Morguson v. 3M Co.

    857 So. 2d 796 (Ala. 2003)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the substantial modification of medical equipment was not foreseeable to the manufacturer where, among other things, the equipment had been incorrectly assembled and the assembler failed to follow hospital instructions for verifying equipment was correctly assembled

    This appeal involves only the product-liability claims Morguson asserted against 3M and Baxter. In Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala. 1994), this Court stated our standard of reviewing a summary judgment in the context of a products-liability action: "The standard of reviewing a summary judgment is the same as the standard for granting the motion; we must determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact, and, if not, whether the movant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

  3. Rodgers v. Shave Mfg. Co., Inc.

    993 F. Supp. 1428 (M.D. Ala. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    See Halsey, 695 So.2d at 608. In addition, the court must determine whether there is a genuine issue as to whether the alteration was the factual and proximate cause of the injury. Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 867 (Ala. 1994). In opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff contends that the "alteration" of attaching a modified non-Shaver manufactured auger to the Shaver post-hole digger was indeed "foreseeable."

  4. Harris v. JLG Indus.

    CIVIL ACTION: 15-00365-KD-B (S.D. Ala. Aug. 2, 2016)

    An alteration to a product "amounts to an intervening or superseding cause of the injury." Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 867 (Ala. 1994). Alabama holds the manufacturer liable only for defects which existed at the time the product left its control.

  5. Gardner v. Aloha Ins. Servs.

    Case No. 2:11-CV-3450-RDP (N.D. Ala. Mar. 4, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to claim that the defendant met any of the exceptions presented in § 6-5-521(b)-

    b. the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.Tanksley v. ProSoft Automation, Inc., 982 So.2d 1046, 1049-50 (Ala. 2007); Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala. 1994); Yamaha Motor Co. v. Thornton, 579 So.2d 619, 621 (Ala. 1991); Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 132-33 (Ala. 1976). "In an AEMLD action, 'the plaintiff must affirmatively show that the product was sold with a defect or in a defective condition.'"

  6. Hughes v. Stryker Sales Corp.

    CIVIL ACTION 08-0655-WS-N (S.D. Ala. May. 13, 2010)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a recall notice referring to the possibility of divergences from company-imposed limits "in some cases" cannot support an inference that any specific device manufactured by the defendant was defective

    "Proof of an accident and injury alone is insufficient to establish fault under the AEMLD." Verchot v. General Motors Corp., 812 So.2d 296, 303 (Ala. 2001) (citation omitted); see also Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 867 (Ala. 1994) ("Mere proof that an accident and injuries occurred is not enough to establish a prima facie case under the AEMLD."); Townsend v. General Motors Corp., 642 So.2d 411, 415 (Ala. 1994) ("Proof of an accident and injury is not in itself sufficient to establish liability under the AEMLD; a defect in the product must be affirmatively shown."). Rather, "[t]he Plaintiff must prove that the product was substantially unaltered when used by him and must also prove causation in fact, including proof that the defect caused the injury and that the defect is traceable to the Defendant."

  7. Tanksley v. Prosoft

    982 So. 2d 1046 (Ala. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that on de novo review an appellate court cannot consider inadmissible evidence that should have been stricken by the trial court before ruling on a motion for a summary judgment

    " Yamaha Motor Co. v. Thornton, 579 So.2d 619, 621 (Ala. 1991) (quoting Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 132-53 (Ala. 1976))."Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala. 1994). On appeal, Tanksley alleges generally that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden on summary judgment to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact.

  8. Garrie v. Summit Treestands, LLC

    50 So. 3d 458 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming summary judgment on an AEMLD claim when plaintiff failed to show the existence of a specific, alternative design

    " `Yamaha Motor Co. v. Thornton, 579 So.2d 619, 621 (Ala. 1991) (quoting Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 132-33 (Ala. 1976)).'"Tanksley v. ProSoft Automation, Inc., 982 So.2d 1046, 1049-50 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala. 1994)). "In an AEMLD action, `the plaintiff must affirmatively show that the product was sold with a defect or in a defective condition.' Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 581 So.2d 835, 836-37 (Ala. 1991).

  9. Garrie v. Summit Treestands

    No. 2080164 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 21, 2009)

    "`Yamaha Motor Co. v. Thornton, 579 So. 2d 619, 621 (Ala. 1991) (quoting Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So. 2d 128, 132-33 (Ala. 1976)).'"Tanksley v. ProSoft Automation, Inc., 982 So. 2d 1046, 1049-50 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So. 2d 865, 866 (Ala. 1994)). "In an AEMLD action, `the plaintiff must affirmatively show that the product was sold with a defect or in a defective condition.' Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 581 So. 2d 835, 836-37 (Ala. 1991).