Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_12-cv-04028/USCOURTS-alnd-7_12-cv-04028-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

VERNA SPEIGHTS, Administrator ad

Litem of the Estate of Leander Russell,

Jr.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE HERTZ CORPORATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 7:12-CV-4028-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is presently pending before the court on plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or

Amend Court Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons set forth

below, the court finds that plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend is due to be denied.

DUTY TO PROVIDE DECEDENT A SAFE VEHICLE

In her Motion to Alter or Amend, plaintiff argues that the court failed to address her

claims based on defendant’s alleged breach of its duty to provide decedent “a vehicle which

was reasonabl[y] safe for him to drive.” (Doc. 12 ¶¶ 3-6.) However, the court specifically

addressed plaintiff’s argument that defendant should have provided the decedent a larger

vehicle:

Plaintiff alleges that defendant owed decedent a duty to warn him that

the compact car “was inappropriate for him to drive given his size in relation

to the size of the vehicle,” and should have “provide[d] a vehicle to [decedent]

which had sufficient driver occupant space for a man of his size.” (Doc. 1 ¶

15.) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that defendant “failed to provide a vehicle

to Leander Russell which had sufficient driver occupant space for a man of his

FILED

 2014 Sep-08 PM 02:32

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:12-cv-04028-SLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 4
size.” (Id. [emphasis added].) The Complaint does not allege that defendant

refused to rent decedent a mid-size or larger car; it does not allege that

defendant did not have any larger cars available. Therefore, the court finds

that plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that defendant

did not “provide” decedent with a larger car; rather the facts as alleged indicate

that defendant gave decedent the compact car decedent requested.

Assuming defendant provided decedent the size car he requested, the

issue is whether defendant had a duty to refuse to rent decedent a compact car

based on his size and/or to warn him that he would be safer in a bigger car. 

The court has found no Alabama law establishing such a duty. Therefore,

plaintiff’s claims based on a duty to warn and/or to provide plaintiff a larger

car are due to be dismissed.

(Doc. 10 at 9-10.)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend based on her contention that the court failed to

address her duty-to-provide claim will be dismissed.

DUTY TO PROVIDE SEAT BELT EXTENDER

Plaintiff contends that the court erred in dismissing her claims based on defendant’s

failure to provide the decedent a seat belt extender. (Doc. 10 ¶¶ 5-6.) She argues that the

court “never addressed application of this duty separate and apart from a failure to warn.” 

(Id. ¶ 6.) The court addressed the duty to warn and the duty to provide an extender together

because both duties were based on the size of the decedent relative to the seat belt. It held:

Under the facts as alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint, defendant had no reason to

believe that decedent would not or could not realize that his seat belt would not

fit. Clearly such fact would have been evident to decedent as soon as he tried

to buckle the seat belt. Therefore, the court finds defendant had no duty to

warn decedent that the compact car’s seat belt would not fit him or to give an

extender without a request. The court finds no duty upon a rental car company

to presume a large customer cannot buckle the seat belt in a compact car and

2

Case 7:12-cv-04028-SLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 4
to act accordingly when the customer is in the best position to determine

definitively whether he or she can buckle the seat belt.

(Doc. 10 at 8.)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend with regard to the defendant’s duty to provide

a seat belt extender will be denied.

WANTONNESS

Plaintiff states that her “claim for wantonness should be permitted to continue and

survive dismissal to the extent [her] claim of negligence in failing to provide Decedent with

a reasonably safe vehicle should also be permitted to survive.” (Doc. 12 ¶ 8.) As the court

finds no reason to reconsider its prior Order dismissing plaintiff’s negligence claim, it will

deny plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend its Order dismissing her wantonness claim.

BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIMS

Plaintiff contends that this court erred in dismissing her breach of warranty claim

because “the Alabama Supreme Court has acknowledged on many occasions that breach of

warranty claims is appropriate when pursuing a wrongful death action.” (Doc. 12 ¶ 9.) In

dismissing plaintiff’s breach-of-warranty claims this court held, “The Alabama Supreme

Court has held ‘that no contractual cause of action for wrongful death is created by our

Uniform Commercial Code arising from a breach of warranty, and that actions for wrongful

death can arise in this state and be processed only under our wrongful death acts.’” (Doc.

10 at 11 [quoting Geohagan v. General Motors Co., 279 So. 2d 436, 440 (1973); citing

Chandler v. Hospital Authority of City of Huntsville, 500 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Ala.

3

Case 7:12-cv-04028-SLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 4
1986)(reaffirming Geohagan)].). The Alabama Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed

Geohagan and stated, explicitly, “a breach-of-warranty claim cannot be maintained under

Alabama’s wrongful-death statute.” Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC v. Wiese, No.

1120007, 2013 WL 5966771, *3 (Ala. Nov. 8, 2013).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the court’s Order and to allow her to proceed

with her breach of warranty claims will be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court is of the opinion that plaintiff’s Motion to Alter

or Amend Court Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice, (doc. 12) is due to be denied. An

Order denying her Motion will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum

Opinion.

DONE this 8th day of September, 2014.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4

Case 7:12-cv-04028-SLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 4