Case ID: so2d_823/html/0694-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PITTMAN, Judge. YATES, Presiding Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John LEE v. MERCURY MARINE.
    2000408.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Aug. 31, 2001.
    Certiorari Denied Dec. 21, 2001 Alabama Supreme Court 1002134.
    
      Floyd C. Enfinger, Jr., Montrose, for appellant.
    Joseph P.H. Babington and Russell C. Buffkin of Helmsing, Leach, Herlong, Newman & Rouse, P.C., Mobile, for appel-lee.
   PITTMAN, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R.App. P.; Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; § 12-21-12, Ala.Code.1975; Danford v. Arnold, 582 So.2d 545 (Ala.1991); Wellcraft Marine v. Zarzour, 577 So.2d 414 (Ala.1990); Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So.2d 412 (Ala.1990); Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794 (Ala.1989); West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala.1989); Bussey v. John Deere Co., 531 So.2d 860 (Ala.1988); and Feil v. Wittern Group, Inc., 784 So.2d 302 (Ala.Civ.App.2000).

CRAWLEY, THOMPSON, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur.

YATES, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

YATES, Presiding Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Although I concur in the affirmance of that part of the trial court’s judgment denying an award for damages for mental anguish, I must respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the summary judgment. In reviewing the record, it appears that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the cause of the damage to the motorboat engine. Robert Lee, a master technician for Mercury Marine, submitted an affidavit stating, in part, that the “ ‘powerhead’ of the engine had ingested water through the fuel and/or oil injection system.” He further stated that there was no evidence that the engine had a defect in material or workmanship. Joe Maniscalco, a service manager at Trail Marine, submitted an affidavit on Lee’s behalf, stating that in his opinion “the damage done to the one engine was not caused by water pumped through either the oil or fuel induction systems.” He also stated that he found no evidence of owner abuse or neglect. Based on the conflicting evidence, I would reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.