Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; April 26, 1991; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Barbara Briant King, as administratrix of her son Kenneth Halpern's estate, filed a lawsuit against S.R. Smith, Inc. under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), claiming that the company failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of diving from a diving board it manufactured. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of S.R. Smith, which was made final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case involved the circumstances surrounding an incident in May 1988, when Halpern dove into a swimming pool, hitting his head and sustaining a broken neck that resulted in permanent quadriplegia; he later died from pneumonia related to his condition. The swimming pool had been built in 1981 by a different company and met the safety standards of the National Spa and Pool Institute.
The standard for summary judgment was articulated according to Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ. P., stipulating that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden rests with the party seeking summary judgment to demonstrate the absence of material fact issues, which does not shift to the opposing party until a prima facie case is established.
In evaluating the motion for summary judgment, the court must consider evidence in favor of the nonmovant and resolve any reasonable doubts against the movant. Ms. King contended that S.R. Smith had a duty to warn of dangers associated with diving, as manufacturers are expected to inform consumers of known or potential risks associated with their products that could result in harm when used as intended.
In Hawkins v. Montgomery Industries International, Inc. and related cases, S.R. Smith argued it fulfilled its duty to warn users by placing a warning sticker on its diving boards stating the risks associated with diving. However, evidence revealed that this warning was only implemented in 1985, after the diving board at issue was manufactured and installed. Prior to that, the only warning was a sticker underneath the board that was not visible from above and warned against installing the board in shallow water.
Alvin Shelton, S.R. Smith's vice president, acknowledged the company knew about the dangers of diving prior to 1985 but did not retroactively inform earlier customers. S.R. Smith claimed the dangers were "open and obvious," which they argued should negate liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD). However, the court clarified that "open" and "obvious" dangers pertain to defenses like assumption of risk rather than the duty to warn.
The court found that Ms. King presented substantial evidence showing S.R. Smith marketed a dangerous product without adequate warnings, establishing genuine issues of material fact appropriate for a jury to consider regarding failure to warn or improper warning. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of S.R. Smith and remanded the case for further proceedings.
