Opinion ID: 1148784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to give reasonable warnings

Text: Clarke contends that its warnings and the methods it used to convey those warnings were reasonable. After a review of the record, we find that there was substantial evidence that Clarke's warnings were not reasonable. There was testimony from a safety engineer that the risk of spontaneous combustion of dust in sander bags has been known within the engineering and safety community for over 50 years. This expert further testified that a warning of the risk of spontaneous combustion can be and should be affixed to the machine itself. He also testified that it is totally unreasonable to expect any literature containing such a warning to follow the machine and that proper engineering design requires that a permanent label or tag be affixed to the machine. In view of the dangerous propensities of the sander, the seriousness of the potential hazard to life and property, the standards for warning within the industry, and the methods available to Clarke to communicate such a warning, we find that there was substantial evidence that Clarke failed to take reasonable steps to provide an adequate warning. Certainly, Home submitted at least substantial evidence on all of the elements of both the negligent-failure-to-warn claim and the AEMLD claim against Clarke. Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying Clarke's motion for a j.n.o.v. The trial court's judgment in this case is due to be affirmed. AFFIRMED. HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.