Beech Through Beech v. Outboard Marine Corp.

Citations: 584 So. 2d 447; 1991 Ala. LEXIS 378; 1991 WL 88714Docket: 89-1815-CER

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; May 3, 1991; Alabama; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Matthew Beech, a minor represented by his father, Thomas Beech, filed a lawsuit against Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, claiming defective design under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) due to OMC's failure to include a propeller guard on its 1988 Model 85-horsepower Johnson boat engine. The lawsuit also included allegations of negligence and wantonness after Matthew was injured while swimming near a boat equipped with the OMC engine. 

OMC moved for summary judgment, asserting that the case centered solely on the absence of a propeller guard as the alleged defect. The court noted that the relevant Alabama law issues closely resembled those in Elliott v. Brunswick Corp., where the Eleventh Circuit previously found that a plaintiff must demonstrate the availability of a safer, practical alternative design and that an unguarded propeller does not exceed what an ordinary consumer would expect in terms of danger. The court acknowledged the absence of clear controlling precedents from the Alabama Supreme Court on these legal questions, and referenced the Elliott case, which emphasized that the lack of a propeller guard did not render the product unreasonably dangerous under Alabama law, particularly since industry standards and regulations did not require such guards.

The Eleventh Circuit identified key principles of Alabama law leading to the determination that the defendant's motion for a directed verdict should be granted. In the Elliott case, the jury evaluated extensive expert testimony suggesting that a propeller guard could have been feasibly adapted for use on pleasure crafts, which were involved in the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff argued that while no feasible guard existed at the time, it could have been developed with reasonable use of the manufacturer's resources. The central issue on appeal was whether the jury could credibly accept the plaintiff's experts. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the expert consensus indicated that adopting propeller guards was not only infeasible but also unwise and unsafe, reflecting Alabama law on the subject.

The court noted the unusual nature of confronting identical legal issues from Elliott. Although it could have granted a summary judgment based on that precedent, the plaintiff sought to distinguish the current case and requested certification of specific questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The court found no legitimate distinction between the two cases and decided to certify questions regarding the feasibility of a prima facie case under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) in light of differing expert opinions on the design and marketing of propeller guards.

The certified questions included: A) Whether an injured swimmer could present a prima facie case under AEMLD despite expert disagreement on the feasibility and desirability of a propeller guard; B) Whether expert testimony could establish a jury issue of product defect when the only alleged defect was the absence of a guard; and C) Whether an unguarded propeller on a pleasure boat is considered dangerous beyond the expectation of an ordinary consumer under Alabama law. The court will hold OMC's motion for summary judgment in abeyance until the Supreme Court of Alabama addresses these certified questions.

Several qualified expert witnesses presented differing opinions on the feasibility and desirability of designing a propeller guard for pleasure craft, which could potentially protect swimmers from propeller injuries under certain circumstances. The central legal questions involve whether a swimmer injured by an unguarded propeller can establish a prima facie case of negligence or wantonness, assuming substantial evidence of proximate causation is presented. The document references the case Elliott v. Brunswick Corp. and emphasizes the need to assess whether an outboard motor on a pleasure boat without a propeller guard is defective under Alabama law.

To prove defectiveness, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a safer, practical alternative design existed at the time of manufacture, which would have reduced or eliminated the injuries sustained. Factors for consideration include the intended use, styling, cost, safety aspects, foreseeability of accidents, and the utility of the alternative design compared to the original. The court declines to establish that the mere existence of a feasible propeller guard constitutes an alternative design, particularly if such a guard may introduce other dangers and does not meet current industry standards for practicality. Ultimately, the court concludes that there is no cause of action for failure to provide propeller guards under either the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), negligence, or wantonness theories.