Title: Beech Through Beech v. Outboard Marine Corp.
Citation: 584 So. 2d 447
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 3, 1991

584 So. 2d 447 (1991)
Matthew BEECH, a minor, who sues Through his father and next friend, Thomas L. BEECH
v.
OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION.
89-1815-CER.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 3, 1991.
Rehearing Denied July 12, 1991.
R. Ben Hogan III of Hogan, Smith, Alspaugh, Samples and Pratt, Birmingham, for appellant.
Jere F. White, Jr. of Lightfoot, Franklin, White &amp; Lucas, Birmingham, and Warren E. Platt of Snell &amp; Wilmer, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Beech, on behalf of his minor son, Matthew, and himself, sued Outboard Marine Corporation ("OMC") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging defective design under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD") for OMC's failure to include a propeller guard on its 1988 Model 85-horsepower Johnson boat engine and also alleging negligence and wantonness.[1] On OMC's motion for summary judgment, the District Court *448 withheld a ruling and, instead, issued the following memorandum opinion:
The questions the District Court certified to this Court are:
(Emphasis original.)
As the District Court noted, this case is, indeed, identical in law and in fact to Elliott v. Brunswick Corp., 903 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, Elliott v. Mercury Marine, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 756, 112 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1991). At the risk of being repetitious, we hold, as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did in Elliott, that General Motors Corp. v. Edwards, 482 So. 2d 1176 (Ala.1985), is determinative of the questions presented to us by the District Court. In deciding whether a cause of action for failure to provide a propeller guard exists in Alabama, we must answer this dispositive question: Is an outboard motor, on a pleasure boat and lacking a propeller guard, "defective" as that term is defined under Alabama law? In answering that threshold question, we are guided by the language in General Motors Corp.:
482 So. 2d  at 1191 (emphasis added).
We decline to hold, as a matter of law, that simply because "a feasible propeller guard could have been designed by a proper use of the manufacturer's resources" that an "alternative design" existed. Furthermore, a propeller guard that "arguably creat[es] other dangers" is not a "safer" design within the meaning of General Motors Corp. v. Edwards. We also note that, according to present industry standards, the evidence does not conclusively show that such propeller guards are "practical." Finally, we agree with and adopt the interpretation by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Elliott of the consumer expectation test under Alabama law. 903 F.2d  at 1507.
In conclusion, we answer questions B and C in the negative. With regard to questions A, D, and E, we hold that there is no cause of action, under either the AEMLD or negligence or wantonness theories, for failure to provide propeller guards on pleasure boat outboard motors.
QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
ALMON, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
[1]  Although the style of the case does not so indicate and the District Court's statement to this Court does not so indicate, the complaint indicates that Thomas Beech also sued individually.