Case Title: Ex Parte Diversey Corp.

Citation: 742 So. 2d 1250

Docket Number: 1971523

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1999-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
742 So. 2d 1250 (1999)
Ex parte DIVERSEY CORPORATION.
(In re Harriett Cooper v. Diversey Corporation.).
1971523.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 25, 1999.
Jasper P. Juliano, Dorothy A. Powell, and John M. Bergquist of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
M. Clay Ragsdale, Birmingham, for respondent.
Samuel H. Franklin and Stephen J. Rowe of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham; and Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, *1251 Inc., Reston, Virginia, for amicus curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.
Rhonda Pitts Chambers of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham; and Charles A. Stewart III of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
Matthew C. McDonald and Thomas J. Woodford of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L.L.C., Mobile, for amici curiae Business Council of Alabama, Alabama Chemical Ass'n, Alabama Industry and Manufacturers Ass'n, and Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n.
LYONS, Justice.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant Diversey Corporation in Harriett Cooper's action brought under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD"). In doing so, the Court of Civil Appeals considered expert testimony submitted by Cooper in support of her opposition to Diversey's motion for summary judgment. See Cooper v. Diversey Corp., 742 So. 2d 1244 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998). We reverse and remand.
The principles of law applicable to a motion for summary judgment are well settled. To grant such a motion, the trial court must determine that the evidence does not raise a genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. When the movant makes a prima facie showing that those two conditions are satisfied, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989). Evidence is "substantial" if it is of "such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).
In our review of a summary judgment, we apply the same standards as the trial court. Ex parte Lumpkin, 702 So. 2d 462, 465 (Ala.1997). Our review is subject to the caveat that we must review the record in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and must resolve all reasonable doubts against the movant. Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So. 2d 412, 413 (Ala.1990).
The facts of this case were summarized by the Court of Civil Appeals.
742 So. 2d  at 1245.
Diversey moved for a summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Cooper had failed to identify any product manufactured by Diversey that actually or proximately caused her injuries and (2) Cooper's testimony and the testimony of her *1252 expert did not identify a product that was in an unreasonably unsafe or dangerous condition when put to its intended use. Diversey supported its summary judgment motion by attaching a transcript of the testimony of Dr. Jack Hasson. Dr. Hasson testified that Cooper's exposure to the chemicals used at Aratex did not cause her injuries. He also testified that the cause of dermatomyositis is "essentially unknown." (R. 160.) Also, in its memorandum brief in support of its motion Diversey argued that the testimony of Cooper's expert was irrelevant and scientifically unreliable. Diversey stated:
(C.R.167-68.)
In her response to Diversey's motion for summary judgment, Cooper presented the deposition of her expert, Dr. Ronald N. Hunsinger, who testified as follows:
(Depo. of Dr. Ronald N. Hunsinger, pp. 115-16; 142-44.) (Emphasis added.)
Although it is unclear from this portion of Dr. Hunsinger's deposition what "chemicals" he was referring to, earlier portions of his deposition show that he was referring to all of the chemicals used by Aratex in its cleaning solutions and to which Cooper was exposed. Diversey manufactured all but one of these chemicals. The chemical not manufactured by Diversey was sodium hypochlorite, which was produced by Industrial Chemical Company. According to Dr. Hunsinger, sodium hypochlorite is a kind of bleach that "can certainly have volatile and irritating effects on the lungs and skin." (Depo. of Dr. Ronald N. Hunsinger, p. 110.)
Diversey did not respond to Cooper's response to its motion for summary judgment, and it did not move to strike Dr. Hunsinger's testimony. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Diversey. The court did not state a reason or reasons for entering the summary judgment. It made the following entry on its case action summary sheet: "Upon argument of counsel and briefs filed by both parties, [Diversey's] motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Therefore, judgment is entered in favor of defendant Diversey Corporation and against plaintiff. Costs taxed to plaintiff. Clerk: Case terminated."
In reversing the trial court's judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals, considering Dr. Hunsinger's testimony, stated:
742 So. 2d  at 1248. We granted Diversey's petition for certiorari review.
Diversey argues that the Court of Civil Appeals should not have considered Dr. Hunsinger's testimony offered by Cooper in support of her opposition to Diversey's motion for summary judgment because, Diversey argues, "his testimony is incompetent and does not follow the mandates set out by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)." (Petitioner's Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, p. 11.) Diversey, as well as several amici curiae, argue that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in not applying the standard announced in Daubert. Diversey and the amici maintain that this Court should apply the Daubert standards to exclude the expert testimony presented by Cooper in this case.
Cooper argues that this issue was not preserved for our review, because, the record shows, Diversey did not move to exclude or to strike Dr. Hunsinger's testimony. We agree.
Generally, a nonmovant cannot use inadmissible evidence to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Rule 56(e), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Perry v. Mobile County, 533 So. 2d 602, 604 (Ala. 1988). However, as Cooper argues, the court can consider inadmissible evidence if the party against whom it is offered does not object to the evidence by moving to *1254 strike it. See Perry, supra, which was followed in Glenn v. Vulcan Materials Co., 534 So. 2d 598 (Ala.1988), overruled on other grounds, Lowman v. Piedmont Executive Shirt Mfg. Co., 547 So. 2d 90 (Ala. 1989); in Glenn this Court applied the Perry rule to deposition testimony. However, this Court has stated that inadmissible evidence cannot be considered under this exception (i.e., the exception that arises when the party does not object to the evidence) if to consider it would cause a "`gross miscarriage of justice.'" Perry, 533 So. 2d  at 604-05 (quoting Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2738 (1983)).
As noted above, Diversey did not move to strike the expert testimony submitted by Cooper in support of her opposition to Diversey's motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, Diversey has offered no explanation as to why considering the evidence would result in a gross miscarriage of justice, and the record before us suggests no such explanation. We conclude that Diversey waived its objection to the plaintiff's expert testimony.
Diversey has pointed us to Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999), in which the United States Supreme Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Daubert standard to exclude nonscientific expert testimony. In Kumho, however, the defendants moved to exclude the expert testimony submitted by the plaintiff in support of his products-liability claim, and the trial court granted their motion. 526 U.S. at ___, 119 S. Ct.  at 1173. Because Diversey did not move to exclude Dr. Hunsinger's testimony, the Court of Civil Appeals did not err in considering it.
Diversey also argues that Dr. Hunsinger's testimony did not refute its prima facie showing that the chemicals manufactured by Diversey did not cause Cooper's injuries. It maintains that because Dr. Hunsinger could not testify that a specific product caused Cooper's injuries, his testimony was mere conjecture and therefore not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. We agree.
Many years ago, this Court gave an excellent explanation of the problem caused when a party presents speculative testimony to prove causation:
Southern Ry. v. Dickson, 211 Ala. 481, 486, 100 So. 665, 669 (1924).[1]
Applying the Dickson rule to the present case, we conclude that Dr. Hunsinger's testimony did not point to any one theory of causation implicating only Diversey's products. As noted above, he testified that it was more probable than not that "any or all" of the chemicals to which Cooper was exposed caused her injuries. *1255 These chemicals included sodium hypochlorite, a chemical not manufactured by Diversey. Thus, Dr. Hunsinger's theory of causation is just as consistent with the theory that sodium hypochlorite caused Cooper's injuries as it is with the theory that one or more of Diversey's products caused her injuries.
Thus, Dr. Hunsinger's testimony was "without selective application" to the theory that Diversey's products caused Cooper's injuries; thus, it was mere "conjecture," which is insufficient to support a finding of fact. Therefore, the Court of Civil Appeals should not have reversed the summary judgment in favor of Diversey. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand this case for an order or proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, COOK, SEE, BROWN, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur.
[1]  The legal principle or rule stated in Dickson has been followed in more cases than can be cited in this opinion, but a few examples are Griffin Lumber Co. v. Harper, 247 Ala. 616, 621, 25 So. 2d 505, 509 (1946), which was followed in Alabama Power Co. v. Robinson, 447 So. 2d 148, 153-54 (Ala.1983), which was quoted in Townsend v. General Motors Corp., 642 So. 2d 411, 423 (Ala.1994), and in the more recent case of Shanes v. Kiser, 729 So. 2d 319 (Ala.1999).