FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 86 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 01 21 6- CV-IPJ J.H.O.C., d.b .a. Prem ie r Tran sp orta ti on , SENTRY SELECT INSURANCE, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us VOLVO T RUCKS NORTH AMERIC A, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 18 , 20 08 ) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:The own er an d t he in su rer o f a tract or , J.H.O.C. d/b/ a Pre m ie r

Tran sp orta ti on (“ Prem ie r”) a ndSen try Selec t In su ran ce re sp ect iv el y , su edth e tra ct orm an uf

actur er, Vo lv o Tru ck s No rth Am eri ca, In c. (“ Vol vo ”), fo ll owi ng an en gi ne fir e o n Au gu st19 , 20 06 . The fi re re su lt edfro m a de fectinth e ex haus t g as reci rcu la ti on syste m

(EGR) th atwas t he subjec t o f a Vo lv o re cal l. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o Vo lv o. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm . I. BACK GROUND On Au gu st22 , 20 06 , a tra ct orm an uf actur edby V ol vo whi ch was o wne d an d o pe rat edby Prem ie r an d i ns ur edby Sent ry cau gh t fi re an d was de st ro y ed . The pa rti es ag ree t ha t t hi s tract orwas s ub ject t o areca ll is su edby V ol vo in Feb ru ary 20 06 . The p art ie s al so ag ree t ha t t he cau se of t he fir e was th e d efec ti ve co nd it io n of th e ex haus t g as reci rcu la ti on (“ EGR”) p ip es th atwas t he subjec t o f th e rec al l. Prem ie r fi rs t l earn edof t he EGR pi pe de fecton Jan uary 21 , 20 06 when Ri ch ardBrady , Prem ie r’s Dire ct orof M ai nt en an ce, rec ei ve d an e m ai l fr om Vol vo di sc us si ng th e p ro bl em

an d a dv is in g h im

th ata reca ll no ti ce wo ul d b e is su ed sh ortl y . The em ai l ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t Vo lv o h ad42 ,00 0 tru ck s i nv ol ve d i n the sa fet y reca ll an d t ha t “ [o ]bvi ou sl y itwil l t ak e se ve ral m on th s t o fa ci li ta te act io n” on so m an y

tru ck s. Th e em ai l al so st at edth at“ [c]us to m ers with t ru ck s af fect edby 2th e rec al l can c on ti nu e to no rm al ly ope rat e th ei r ve hi cl es un ti l the rep ai r is m ad e,

bu t i f th ey

he ar an ex haus t l eakor n oi se un de r th e h oo d, t he y sh ou ldst op th e ve hi cl e imm ed ia te ly andin sp ectth e p ip es .” The e m ai l al so advi se d t ru ckown ers to ex am in e th e p ip es du rin g e ve ry pre -tr ip in sp ect io n. 1 On M arch 6, 2 00 6, Vol vo is su eda reca ll no ti ce fo rm al ly alert in g P rem ie r 2 th ata de fectex is te d i n t he EGR pi pe s o n Vo lv o t ract or s an d i de nt ifyin g t he in di vi du al tra ct or s s ub

ject t o t he reca ll . The n ot ic e cau ti on edtru ckown ers th atan EGR-p ip e fai lu re co ul d re su ltin a fi re an d t he de fectsh ou ldbe co rrec te d. Th e no ti ce s ta te d t ha t s ho ul d t he EGR pi pe s fa il th ere wo ul d b e adva nc e warn in g i n t he fo rm of a n aud ib le in crea se inen gi ne no is e, di sc ern ib le fro m no rm al en gi ne no is e, atwhi ch po in t the dri ve r sh ou ldimm ed ia te ly sto p o pe rat in g t he ve hi cl e. Truc k own ers were advi se d t o l oo k fo r ear ly sig ns of a n EGR-p ip e fai lu re s uc h a s cr ack s, se pa rat io n o f pi pe s, o r so ot in g when co nduc ti ng th ei r reg ul ar p re-trip in sp ect io ns . 3 Pre-trip inspec tions are inspec tions required by Depa rtment of Tra

nsportation reg

ulation 1 that must be perf

ormed be fore ever

y trip on a commer cial tra ctor such a s the truck involved in this lawsuit. S ee 49 C.F .R. § 392.7 (providingthat no commerc ial vehicle ma y be drive n unless the driver is satisfied that the followingparts ar e in g ood workingorder : service brake s and trailer br ake c onnections; hand bra ke; steering me chanism; lightingdevice s and re flec tors; tires; horn; windshield wipers; re ar- vision mi rror s; and couplingdevice s). Although the rec all notice is dated F ebrua ry 28, Premier a sserts that it did not rece ive 2 the notice until Marc h 6. As we c onstrue all fa cts in favor of Premier , the non-movingparty , in revie wingthis summ ary

judgme nt ruling, w e will use Mar ch 6 as the date of the re call notice. Volvo stated that blac k smoke residue from a c rac ked portion of the E GR sy stem would 3 be visible in an inspection under the hood of the tra ctor prior to a fa ilure of the E GR pipes. 3Vol vo ask edtru ck own ers to m ak e anap po in tm en t t o h av e th e rep ai rs pe rfo rm ed atth e n eare stVol vo servi ce ce nt er. The no ti ce s ta te d t ha t t he rep ai rs wou ldtak e ap pr ox im at el y

th irt y m in ut es an d wo ul d b e p erfo rm edat n o c os t t o t he tru ck own er. Acco rd in g t o R ic hardBrad y ’s dep os it io n t es ti m on y , he u nd ers to odth e po te nt ia l fo r fi re i f th e EGR pi pe s wer e n otrep la cedan d kne w th ata sa fet y reca ll was so m ethi ng th atm

us t g etdo ne “ ASAP.” Bra dy tes ti fie d t ha t Pr em ie r be ga n at te m pt in g t o g etit s t ru ck s re pa ire d i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e rec al l n ot ic e, bu t ra n in to so m e d iff

ic ul ty. Becaus e o f anex is ti ng di sp ut e wit h t he Atl an taVol vo se rv ic e cen te r, Prem ie r refu se d t o u se th atlo cat io n t o fi x t he tru ck s an d d eci de d in st eadto ge t t he tru ck s fi xe d o n t he roa d. Un de r th is pl an , th e truc k d riv ers wou ldst op alo ng th ei r ro ut es at Vo lv o s erv ic e cen te rs th ey pa ss edan d t ry

to ge t th e rep ai r do ne . Accor di ng to Brady , “ 40 or 5 0 t im es ” th e se rv ic e cen te rs di d n ot ha ve th e n eces sa ry

pa rt a ndco ul d n otimm ed ia te ly do t he EGR rep ai r. Brad y te st ifi edth atth e Vol vo cen te rs st at edth atth ey co ul d h av e th e p artwithi n ada y , bu t t he Prem ie r tr

uc ks co ul d n otwaitforth e rep ai r be cau se th e truc ks were i n ro ut e to m ak e d el iv eri es an d wer e p ai d a cco rd in g t o t he ti m el in es s o f th ei r arri va l. Brad y st at edth atPrem ie r ke ptno reco rd s o f effo rts to ob ta inth e EGR rep ai r fo r th e sp eci fic tru ckat i ss ue inth is laws ui t, n ordi d h e h av e an y in fo rm at io n a s t o 4ho w oft enor e ve n wh ethe r th is pa rti cu la r tr act orha d s ou gh t re pa ir. He, h owe ve r,

st at edhi s b el ie f th atth ere wer e “pr ob ab ly” effo rts ev ery weekto ge t re pa irs do ne on th e tr act orin vo lv edin th is fir e. At t he ti m e o f th e tr act orfir e in Aug us t 2 00 6, 68 to 70 % of P rem ie r’s tru ck s s ub ject t o t he reca ll ha d b een rep ai red . After t he fir e, Vol vo sen t p art s t o P rem ie r to all ow i t t o d o t he rep ai rs it se lf a ndPrem ie r fin is he d re pa iri ng th e rem ai nd er o f it s fl eetwithi n fi ve week s. Pl ai nt iff s fi le d s ui t s eek in g t o re co ve r lo ss es in cu rredas ares ul t o f th e fi re. Pl ai nt iff s al le ge d (1 ) li ab il it y

un de r th e Alaba m a Ext en de d M an uf actur ers Liab il it y Doct rin e (“ AEMLD”), (2 ) br each of a n i m pl ie d warran ty of m erch an tabi li ty, (3 ) br each of a n i m pl ie d warran ty of fi tn es s fo r a p art ic ul ar pu rp os e, (4 ) ne gl ig en t an d/ orwant on fai lu re t o warn, (5 ) ne gl ig en t an d/ orwant on de si gn de fect , (6) ne gl ig en t an d/ orwant on co ns tru ct io n, i ns ta ll at io n, an d m an uf actur e, an d (7 ) ne gl ig en ce an d/ orwant on ne ss . Plai nt iff s ad de d acla im

for lo ss of u se da m ag es in th ei r Fi rs t Am en de d C om pl ai nt . Vol vo fil eda m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as se rti ng th atPrem ie r was co nt rib ut or il y

ne gl ig en t b y

fai li ng to rep ai r th e EGR-p ip e d efec t wi th in th e se ve n m on th s fo ll owi ng th e rec al l an d h adass um edth e ri skof afir e due to th e d efec ti ve EGR pi pe s b y

co nt in ui ng to op erat e th e tr act orwitho utob ta in in g t he rep ai rs .

5Bas edon th e ab ov e ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt en te redsu m m ary jud gm en t in fav orof Vo lv o, fi nd in g t ha t Pr em ie r ha d c omm it te d c on tri bu to ry ne gl ig en ce i n fai li ng to ge t t he ne ces sary rep ai rs do ne an d h adass um edth e ri skof atra ct orfir e by con ti nu in g t o o pe rat e th e v eh ic le witho utco m pl y in g wi th th e sa fet y

reca ll . The co urt n ot edth atPrem ie r ha d n otpro vi de d any evi de nc e th atany on e h adev er ch eck edth is pa rti cu la r tr act orforth e warn in g s ig ns pri orto th e fi re. Pl ai nt iff s fi le d aMo ti on to Alt er o r Am en d t he Ju dg m en t u nd er Fe d. R. C iv . P. 59 or, i n t he alt ern at iv e, fo r Rel ie f fro m th e Ord er u nd er Fe d. R. C iv . P. 60 (b ). W it h t he ir m ot io n, Pl ai nt iff s s ub m it te d a n a ffi da vi t fr om th e driv er o f th e truc k th atcau gh t fi re. Thi s af

fid av itst at edth atth e driv er p erfo rm eda pr e-t rip in sp ect io n o n t he m orni ng of Au gu st22 , 20 06 an d “ di d n otob se rv e an y m ech an ic al or a ny oth er ty pe of p ro bl em s wi th th e Vol vo tra ct or .” The driv er 4 al so ass ert edth athe ne ve r he ardanin crea se inen gi ne no is e p rio r to th e fi re; he he ardon ly a “ lo udbo om ” aft er wh ic h h e imm ed ia te ly pul le d o ve r. The t ract or was en gu lfe d i n fl am es “ wit hi n s eco nd s.” Pl ai nt iff s o ffer edno ex pl an at io n o r ex cu se as t o wh y

th ey fai le d t o s ub m itth is ev id en ce ea rli er. The di st ric t co urt refu se d t o c on si de r th is ne w evi de nc e b ecau se Pla in ti ffs ha d b een gi ve n a m pl e

We note that the af

fidavit did not state that the driver chec ked for

the spec ific wa

rning 4 signs mentioned in the r eca ll notice. 6ti m e to subm itev id en ce ea rli er. The di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t i ts “ op in io ns an d

or de rs are n otm ean t t o s erv e as gu id el in es forwhatev id en ce t o s ub m itpo st -d at in g th ei r en try.” The co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, an d P la in ti ffs ti m el y ap pe al ed . 5 II . STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, ap pl y in g th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s as th e d is tri ctco urt. Hi- Tech Ph arm ., Inc . v. Cra wfo rd , 54 4 F .3d11 87 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e th ere a re n o g en ui ne is su es of m at eri al factan d t he m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. Wood env. Bd . of R eg en ts of t he Uni v. Sys. of Ga., 24 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ti ng Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c)) . II I. DI SCUSSI ON Und er Al ab am a la w, a de fen da ntsee ki ng su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon 6 co nt rib ut ory

ne gl ig en ce as a m at te r of law “ m us t s ho w th atth e p la in ti ff p ut

The district cour

t ruled that contributory

neg lige nce a

nd assumption of risk defe ated a ll 5 claims except for Plaintiffs’ w antonness cla im, which the district court sepa rate ly found Plaintiffs had failed to e stablish. Pl aintiffs’ a ppeal f ocuses on the a lleg ations of contributory neg lige nce a

nd assumption of risk; they have thus a

bandoned the ir wantonne ss claim on appea l. See United States v. Cunning ham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (holding that an issue is abandone d when a

n appellant f

ails to offer

argument on that issue). They have a lso abandone d their bre ach of

war ranty claims by

not raisingthem on appea l. Undisputedly , Alabama

law applies in this action brought under diver sity jurisdiction. 6 See McMa

han v. Toto, 256 F .3d 1120, 1131-32 (11th Cir. 2001) (notingthat fede ral c ourts apply the substantive law of

the forum state in a ca se with diversity jurisdiction). 7hi m se lf i n d an ge r’s way an d t ha t t he pl ai nt iff

ha d aco ns ci ou s ap pr eci at io n o f th e da ng er atth e m om en t t he in ci de ntoc cu rred .” Hann ah v. Greg g, Bl an d & Berry , In c., 84 0 S o. 2 d 8 39 , 86 0 (Al a. 20 02 ). Whe re a d efec ti ve pro du ctis in vo lv ed , “ [a] pl ai nt iff is co nt rib ut or il y

ne gl ig en t i n h an dl in g ade fect iv e p ro du ctwhen he or s he fai ls to us e rea so nabl e car e wit h re sp ectto th atpro du ct .” Gen. M ot or s C or p. v . Sai nt , 64 6 S o. 2 d 5 64 , 56 8 (Al a. 19 94 ). Norm al ly, th e o ccu rren ce o f co ntrib ut ory ne gl ig en ce i s a que st io n fo r th e jury. Han na h, 8 40 So . 2dat 8 60 . “ Howev er, whe re the fact s ar e su ch th atall reas on ab le pe rs on s m us t re achth e sa m e co nc lu si on , con tri bu to ry

ne gl ig en ce m ay

be fou ndas am at te r of

law.” Id . Ass um pt io n o f th e ri skis est ab li sh edas am at te r of law wh ere t he ev id en ce sh ows “ th atth e p la in ti ff d is co ve redth e al le ge d d efec t, was aware o f th e d an ge r, pr oc eed edun reas on ab ly to u se th e p ro du ct , andwas i nju red .” Sear s v . W as te Pro ces si ng Equ ip m en t, In c., 69 5 S o. 2 d 5 1, 5 3 (Al a. Ci v. Ap p. 1 99 7) . Here, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Pr em ie r was co nt rib ut or il y ne gl ig en t an d as su m edth e ri skby allo win g n earl y si x m on th s t o p as s wi th ou t o bt ai ni ng th e rep ai rs de sc rib edin th e sa fet y reca ll as n eces sa ry

to av oi d p ot en ti al fir e. Prem ie r be ha ve d n eg li ge nt ly becau se th e rec al l n ot ifi edPrem ie r th ata fi re co ul d o ccu r if th e EGR pi pe s wer e n otrep ai red , andfiv e an d aha lf m on th s i s an un reas on ab le am ou ntof t im e to av oi d ane ed edsaf ety rep ai r, es pe ci al ly whe re the co ns eque nc es 8as so ci at io n wi th th e d efec t ar e so gra ve . Mr. Brad y tes ti fie d t ha t h e u nd ers to od th ata po te nt ia l fo r fi re ex is te d a ndhi s s ta te m en t t ha t o ne sh ou ldco m pl y with sa fet y reca ll s “ ASAP” d em on st rat es th atPrem ie r un de rs to odth atth e d an ge r in vo lv ed . Prem ie r arg ue s i t d em on st rat edit s re as on ab le ne ss th ro ug h B rady ’s te st im on y th atsh owe d i t was att em pt in g t o o bt ai n t he rep ai rs on all of i ts tru ck s bu t was un ab le to do so be cau se Vol vo was e xp eri en ci ng a sh orta ge of p art s atit s se rv ic e cen te rs . Prem ie r fu rth er as se rts th atitdi d n otbe ha ve un reas on ab ly be cau se Vol vo adm it te d i n i ts em ai l t ha t i t wo ul d t ak e “ se ve ral m on th s” to co m pl et e th e rep ai rs on all Vol vo tra ct or s an d i nd ic at edth atitwou ldbe saf e to co nt in ue dri vi ng th es e truc ks un le ss th e EGR pi pe s s ho wedcrac ks or s oo t re si du e oranin crea se inen gi ne no is e was he ard . Prem ie r, ho wev er, fai le d t o a dduc e ev id en ce t ha t i t at te m pt edto rep ai r th e pa rti cu la r tr act orth atcau gh t fi re; all it s ev id en ce re ferr edto it s g en eral effo rts to fix th e truc ks in it s p os se ss io n s ub ject t o t he reca ll . In t he ir b rie f, Pla in ti ffs ass ert th at“ [i]t i s cl ear t ha t Pr em ie r di d e ve ryth in g i t co ul d u nd er the cir cu m st an ces to ge t i ts fle etof Vo lv o t ract or s re pa ire d.” Not hi ng in th e rec or d, h owe ve r, in di cat es th at an yeffo rts were m ad e to bri ng th is sp eci fic tra ct or into rep la ce t he de fect iv e EGR pa rts . W it ho utev id en ce t ha t Pr em ie r at te m pt edto fix th is pa rti cu la r truc k, 9th ere i s n ot hi ng to refu te Vol vo ’s ass ert io ns th atPrem ie r’s own ne gl ig en ce an d

as su m pt io n o f th e ri skwere t he pro xi m at e cau se of t he tra ct orfir e. Prem ie r arg ue s tha t t he co urt s ho ul d i nf er fro m it s ev id en ce t ha t i t m ad e ge ne ral effo rts to rep ai r al l t he tru ck s i n i ts fle etan d t ha t i t p ro babl y tri edto fix th is pa rti cu la r tr act or . Yet, th is ev id en ce wo ul d n othe lp Prem ie r. Even if we in ferr edth atPrem ie r oc cas io na ll y att em pt edto rep ai r th is tru ckbu t d idno t d o s o be cau se th e se rv ic e cen te r wou ldha ve ha d t o o bt ai n aba ck -o rd eredpa rt, Pr em ie r was st il l co nt rib ut or il y

ne gl ig en t. The un di sp ut edev id en ce i nd ic at es th atth e rep ai rs wou ldtak e b etween a ha lf h ou r an d an h ou r to pe rfo rm an d t ha t wh en Vol vo servi ce ce nt ers di d n otha ve th e p art s i t wo ul d t ak e ap pr ox im at el y a da y for th e p artto arri ve . Furt he rm or e, in th ei r br ie f to th is co urt, Pl ai nt iff s s ta te th atth e pa rts sh orta ge “ was no t re m ed ie d u nt il ov er o ne m on thin to th e rec al l p ro ces s.” The y off eredno ex pl an at io n fo r th e d el ay in ob ta in in g the rep ai r be twee n t ha t t im e an d t he en d o f Aug us t wh enth e fi re o ccu rred . It i s u nr eas on ab le as am at te r of la w to waitalm os t s ix m on th s t o o bt ai n asaf ety rep ai r th atwou ldpre ve nta fi re i n or de r to av oi d an h ou r or , at t he ve ry m os t a o ne -d ay , del ay . Add it io na ll y , Prem ie r fai le d t o p oi ntto ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t i t t oo k t he pr ecau ti on s Vo lv o a dv is edtru ckown ers to pe rfo rm in th e sa fet y

reca ll furth er sh owi ng th atitwas c on tri bu to ril y ne gl ig en t an d a ss um edth e ri skth ata da m ag in g 10fir e wou ldoc cu r. The s afet y reca ll st at edth atdri ve rs “ m us t” fol lo w th e 7 in sp ect io n i ns tru ct io ns to lo okforfai li ng EGR pi pe s dur in g p re-trip in sp ect io ns . The reco rdat s umm ary jud gm en t was de vo idof a ny evi de nc e th atPrem ie r in sp ect edth e p ip es for

crac ks or s oo t re si du e. The re co rdals o d idno t s ho w th at th e EGR-p ip e d efec t i n t hi s t ru ckoc cu rredwitho utwarn in g s ig ns . Thu s, t he reco rdsh ows th atth ere was no ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factan d tha t Pr em ie r was co nt rib ut or il y

ne gl ig en t an d a ss um edth e ri skas am at te r of law. By fai li ng to ob ta in ne ed edrep ai rs th atitkn ew wou ldpre ve ntth e v ery fir e th atoc cu rredan d fa il in g t o t ak e p recaut io ns ne ces sa ry to all ow co nt in ue d t ru ck op erat io n u nt il rep ai rs co ul d b e p erfo rm ed , Prem ie r was co nt rib ut or il y ne gl ig en t an d a ss um edth e ri skth atth is tra ct orfir e wou ldoc cur. Thi s ca se is si m il ar t o Sear s v . W as te Pro ces si ng Equ ip ., Inc ., where in th e p la in ti ff’s em pl oyees co nt in ue d t o u se a pr oduc t t ha t t he y kn ew to be de fect iv e witho uttak in g pr ecau ti on s an d o ne em

pl oyee was c on se qu en tl y in jure d. 6 95 So . 2dat 5 2. In

The a ffidavit of the truck drive r wa s not submit ted until the Plainti ffs’ post-judgment 7 motion. This was the first evidenc e that anyone had pe rfor med a pr e-trip inspec tion the day of the fire and that an inc rea se in eng ine noise did not prec ede the fire. We f ind no abuse of discretion in the district cour t’s decision not to consider this evidenc e. Plaintiffs had ample opportunity

to produce this affidavit in opposition to Volvo’s mot ion for summary judgme nt and put forth no explanation as to why they did not do so. Further

more, in their br iefs to this court, Plaintiffs have not pre sented a ny arguments that it was improper f or the c ourt to ref

use to consider this af

fidavit. By

not raisingthis iss ue on appe al, Plaintiffs have a bandoned it. See United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998). 11Sear s, t he em pl oyees kne w th atth e d oo r to a la rg e in du st ria l t ras h c om pa ct orwas m al fu nc ti on in g, an d yet co nt in ue d t o u se th e co m pa ct or . Id. Anem

pl oyee was in jure d wh enth e d efec ti ve do orclo se d o n h er arm . Id. The co urt fo un d tha t t he pl ai nt iff was c on tri bu to ril y

ne gl ig en t an d h adass um edth e ri skas am at te r of law by fail in g t o t ak e rea so nabl e p recaut io ns in us in g akn own de fect iv e p ro du ct . Here, Pre m ie r kn ew th e tr act orwas d efec ti ve an d n eed edto be rep ai redan d yet, fro m th e ev id en ce p res en te d, i t i s n otap pa ren t tha t i t t oo k re as on ab le — o r an y — pr ecau ti on s. Pre m ie r, th eref or e, was co nt rib ut or il y

ne gl ig en t an d a ss um edth e ri sk of a tr act orfir e. A pl ai nt iff

can no t re co ve r in a ne gl ig en ce o r anAEMLD acti on wher e th e pl ai nt iff’s own ne gl ig en ce i s s ho wn t o h av e p ro xi m at el y co nt rib ut edto hi s da m ag e. Tell v. Tere x C or p., 9 62 So . 2d17 4, 1 77 (Ala . 20 07 ). Thu s, Pr em ie r’s co nt rib ut ory

ne gl ig en ce b ars reco ve ry on Pla in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s fo r ne gl ig en ce an d vi ol at io ns of t he AEMLD. CONCLUSI ON Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we AFFIRM th e ru li ng of the di st ric t co urt.

12