Opinion ID: 1829890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against ABC Auto

Text: As a threshold matter, we address ABC Auto's argument that Donna's claim should be dismissed because, it argues, Donna's brief does not comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(7) and Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P. [5] We recently stated: We note that waiver of an argument for failure to comply with Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P., has been limited to those cases where there is no argument presented in the brief and there are few, if any, citations to relevant legal authority, resulting in an argument consisting of undelineated general propositions. See Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 964 So.2d 1 (Ala.2007)(appellant's argument was insufficient to invoke review of the allegedly excessive compensatory-damages award to plaintiff/appellee in a personal-injury action where the appellant's three-sentence argument cited only a single case in support of a general proposition of law and offered no discussion of the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries); Davis v. Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc., 965 So.2d 1076 (Ala.2007)(appellant's lone citation to a general principle of law without specific relevance to her action against financial services company was insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) to cite relevant authority in support of arguments); Hall v. Hall, 903 So.2d 78 (Ala.2004)(the appellant cited no authority for the proposition that the checking account should have been included as an asset of the estate and presented no argument and cited no authority to support his conclusion that the ore tenus rule did not require an affirmance on this issue); and Ex parte Gonzalez, 686 So.2d 204 (Ala.1996)(petitioner did not show a clear legal right to having capital-murder indictment quashed on the ground that the district attorney testified as a witness in front of the grand jury when the petitioner cited only a federal district court case that was not binding authority and that was distinguishable). Ex parte Borden, [Ms. 1050042, August 17, 2007] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.2007) (footnote omitted). Although Donna's brief does not cite an abundance of legal authority to support her claims, the brief does contain sufficient citations to caselaw to adequately frame the issues Donna presents to this Court. Because Donna supports her argument with sufficient citations to caselaw, we address the merits of her claims. [6] Donna argues that the trial court incorrectly entered a summary judgment in favor of ABC Auto because she provided substantial evidence in the form of affidavits and deposition testimony that, she argues, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ABC Auto had a duty to warn Roberts, an independent contractor, of the unreasonably dangerous condition caused when Clements instructed employees of ABC Auto Parts to move the forklift after Roberts's safety measures had been put in place. Unfortunately, she fails to cite to the record when she refers to this alleged evidence in her statement of facts or in her argument. In discussing a premises owner's liability towards an independent contractor, this Court has recognized that an `owner of premises is not responsible to an independent contractor for injury from defects or dangers which the contractor knows of, or ought to know of.' Ex parte Meadowcraft Indus., Inc., 817 So.2d 702, 706 (Ala.2001) (quoting Glenn v. United States Steel Corp., 423 So.2d 152, 154 (Ala.1982), quoting in turn Veal v. Phillips, 285 Ala. 655, 657-58, 235 So.2d 799, 802 (1970)). Moreover, `[t]here is no duty to warn' ... an independent contractor `who has equal or superior knowledge of a potential danger.' Fielder v. USX Corp., 726 So.2d 647, 650 (Ala.1998) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Williams, 570 So.2d 589, 592 (Ala.1990)). Rather, a premises owner's duty to warn arises when the owner is aware `of dangers that are hidden on or inhere in that property.' Farr Metal, Inc. v. Hines, 738 So.2d 863, 864 (Ala.1999) (quoting McGregory v. Lloyd Wood Constr. Co., 736 So.2d 571, 575 (Ala. 1999), ultimately quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Bivins, 276 F.2d 753, 758 (5th Cir.1960) (emphasis omitted)). A party claiming that a duty to warn existed must show: (1) that the defect or danger was `hidden'; (2) that it was `known to the owner'; and (3) that it was `neither known to the contractor, nor such as he ought to know.' Meadowcraft, 817 So.2d at 706 (quoting Glenn v. United States Steel Corp., 423 So.2d at 154). Donna alleges that the relocation of the forklift by the ABC Auto Parts employees and the fact that the emergency brake was inoperative constituted hidden dangers. She argues that these hidden dangers were apparent to ABC Auto because company employees had moved the forklift at Clements's direction, and the employees did not reset the forklift using the safety precautions that Bruce had put in place. She further argues that Roberts was unaware of the hidden dangers because, she says, no one had notified him that the employees had recently moved the forklift and the condition of the forklift appeared unaltered from its condition on the previous day. Because it possessed special knowledge about the relocation of the forklift, Donna argues, ABC Auto owed Roberts a duty to warn. ABC Auto responds that it is not liable for Roberts's death for two reasons. First, it asserts that the alleged dangerous condition created by relocating the forklift was open and obvious. Second, it asserts that even if the relocation of the forklift did result in a hidden danger, Donna cannot prove that the relocation of the forklift by employees of ABC Auto Parts and their failure to put back in place some of the safety precautions caused a shifting of the forklift that, in turn, caused the counterweight to fall. `If the danger is open and obvious, the invitor cannot be held liable.' General Motors Corp. v. Hill, 752 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Ala.1999) (quoting Ex parte Industrial Distrib. Servs. Warehouse, Inc., 709 So.2d 16, 19 (Ala.1997)). The claim that a dangerous condition is open and obvious is an assertion that the first and third requirements of a duty-to-warn claimthat the danger is hidden and that the contractor neither knew nor ought to have known of the dangercannot be satisfied because the danger was readily apparent. In this case, ABC Auto claims that the removal of the extender from one arm of the forklift and the absence of some of the scotches from beneath the rear wheels were open and obvious conditions of which Roberts was aware or reasonably should have been aware. We agree. [7] ABC Auto has provided portions of Bruce's deposition that indicate that the altered conditions around the forklift were open and obvious. Bruce stated in his affidavit that the condition of the forklift appeared unchanged from the previous day; however, he testified in his deposition that when he examined the forklift after the accident, he noted that the wheel scotches he had originally placed behind the rear wheels were six, eight, ten inches away from the tires. He further testified that one arm of the forklift was obviously shorter than the other and that one of the forklift arms was not in the ground. Thus, after the accident, Bruce noticed that the original safety precautions that he and his father had put in place were no longer in place. Donna also testified that Roberts had a habit of implementing safety precautions so that equipment would not move while he was working on it and that he would not have worked on anything that was going to be moving. Bruce's deposition testimony about the visibility of the altered condition of the forklift and Donna's testimony about Roberts's safety concerns indicates that Roberts should have been aware of the danger posed by the removal of the safety precautions designed to prevent the forklift from moving during repairs. Donna submits that a genuine issue of material fact exists because, she argues, the affidavit testimony of Bruce and Wayne McCain, a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Alabama, establishes that all three requirements of a duty to warn are satisfied in this case. However, as previously indicated, we are convinced that Bruce's deposition testimony demonstrates that the conditions surrounding the forklift on the day of the accident were open and obvious. Moreover, Donna has not satisfied her burden of proving the existence of a genuine issue of material fact because her brief is devoid of any citations to portions of the record that would substantiate her claims. This Court does not have the obligation to search the record for substantiation of unsupported factual matter appearing in an appellant's brief in order to determine whether a judgment should be reversed. Friedman v. Friedman, 971 So.2d 23, 31 (Ala.2007). Besides Bruce's affidavit, the only other evidence Donna offers to prove that a hidden danger existed is the affidavit of Wayne McCain. However, McCain's affidavit is not properly before this Court because it appears only as an exhibit to Donna's appellate brief and not as part of the record on appeal. [8] `[A]ttachments to briefs are not considered part of the record and therefore cannot be considered on appeal.' Morrow v. State, 928 So.2d 315, 320 n. 5 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (quoting Huff v. State, 596 So.2d 16, 19 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991)). Further, we cannot consider evidence that is not contained in the record on appeal because this Court's appellate review `is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court.' Ex parte Old Republic Sur. Co., 733 So.2d 881, 883 n. 1 (Ala.1999) (quoting Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1992), and citing Rodriguez-Ramos v. J. Thomas Williams, Jr., M.D., P.C., 580 So.2d 1326 (Ala.1991)). Therefore, McCain's affidavit is not properly before us and cannot serve as substantial evidence of the existence of a hidden danger. [9] Donna has failed to provide substantial evidence that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a hidden danger or defect existed, that ABC Auto was aware of that danger or defect, and that Roberts did not and should not reasonably have known about the danger or defect. [10] We therefore affirm the judgment for ABC Auto.