Opinion ID: 1698190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: c.t.b., inc.

Text: Rita argues on appeal that C.T.B. manufactured a feeder that was not reasonably safe for its intended use and that it failed to warn of the unreasonably dangerous condition of the feeder. She also argues that C.T.B. failed to submit any affidavits to establish that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, therefore, that she never had the burden of presenting substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. C.T.B. contends that, in this case, it properly established that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law through deposition testimony in the record, specifically the deposition testimony of Nicholas and Terry, and that it was not required to establish that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law through affidavits. C.T.B. also contends that the undisputed deposition testimony established that the alleged dangerous condition that injured Nicholas was the result of Smith's modification of the feeder. In his deposition testimony, Terry Williamson testified as follows: Q. And there were two ways this feed could fall out of the bottom of that pipe; first there were places designed into the pipe where the pans were where it would drop down; is that right? A. [Terry Williamson]: Yes. Q. And there also were some holes drilled actually in the pipe itself? A. Yes. Q. There were two different ways it could come out, right? A. Yes. . . . . Q. It's my understanding from what your wife said earlier in her answer to interrogatories that your son injured his finger by putting it in one of the drilled holes instead of one of the places for the pan; is that right? A. Yes. Q. How did you know that? A. That was the only place he could have stuck his finger. Q. You can't get your finger in the ones with the pans? A. The pans do not move. They are designed where the pan does not move. Q. So he couldn't have got it in where the pans were; is that right? A. That's right. This Court has recently restated the elements of a claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD): `To establish liability, a plaintiff must show: `(1) he suffered injury or damages to himself or his property by one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff as the ultimate user or consumer, if `(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and `(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. ' Yamaha Motor Co. v. Thornton, 579 So.2d 619, 621 (Ala.1991) (quoting Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 132-33 (Ala. 1976)) (emphasis added). We note that the mere fact that a product has been modified by the buyer subsequent to the sale does not always relieve a manufacturer of liability. Johnson v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 555 So.2d 88, 91 (Ala.1989). However, the plaintiff must show that the injury was not caused by the change. Id. (quoting Industrial Chemical & Fiberglass Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 475 So.2d 472 (Ala.1985)). The record in this case clearly shows that Nicholas was injured when he stuck his finger into a hole drilled by Smith. Rita failed to produce substantial evidence in order to defeat C.T.B.'s properly supported motion for summary judgment. Therefore, we affirm the summary judgment as to C.T.B.