Opinion ID: 1790691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Preserve Verchot's Automobile

Text: The defendants argue that the summary judgments were proper because, they say, by Plaintiffs' failure to preserve key evidence, GM, Jim Burke, ... Tom Williams [and Quick Oil Change] ... [were] severely prejudiced because they [were] deprived of the ability to establish a defense to Plaintiffs' claims. [2] In Capitol Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smedley, 614 So.2d 439 (Ala.1993), the insurer, one of the plaintiffs in an action alleging an automobile design defect, had the vehicle destroyed 11 months before filing a complaint. We held that the failure of the trial court to dismiss the case was an abuse of discretion, because [a] reasonable person could have concluded ... that [the insurer] might sue and that [t]he stark result [was] that relevant evidence was irreparably lost by the actions of [the insurer]. 614 So.2d at 443. The facts of this case are very similar to those of Smedley. In this case, the plaintiffs allowed the automobile that was the basis of their claim to be disposed of. In both cases, the disposal occurred after the plaintiffs' experts had had an opportunity to examine the automobile. Moreover, in this case, the plaintiffs' attorney accompanied the two mechanics to inspect the automobile eight days after the accident. From that fact, it is reasonable to infer that the plaintiffs contemplated filing a lawsuit. Also, in both cases, the defendants were only given photographs of the subject automobiles. Finally, in both cases, the defendants offered testimony of an engineer to illustrate that in order to defend the action it was necessary for the defendants to have the automobiles available for inspection. In the present case, General Motors attached to its motion for a summary judgment the affidavit of David Buist, a staff project engineer for General Motors, which stated in pertinent part: 10. I have been unable to inspect the Plaintiffs' actual automobile because the Plaintiffs failed to preserve the car after the accident. I have reviewed the photographs provided by Plaintiffs as well as the deposition testimony of the mechanics who examined the Plaintiffs' automobile after the accident. These photographs fail to provide sufficient evidence for me or anyone else to conclude, to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that Plaintiffs' accident was caused by a brake failure resulting from a defect. C.R. at 113. Based upon our holding in Smedley, we likewise might conclude that the trial court properly entered the summary judgments for the defendants on the basis that Verchot's automobile was unavailable for inspection. However, we recognize our decision in Smith v. Atkinson, 771 So.2d 429, 434 (Ala.2000), in which we stated, In Alabama, a products-liability claim relating to a defective automobile is properly disposed of on a motion for summary judgment if the automobile in question is not available and the plaintiff has no other means of proving the alleged defect.  (Emphasis added.) Therefore, we address the plaintiffs' argument concerning the sufficiency of their evidence as it relates to their other means of proving the alleged defect.