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

Heading: Claim Against NASCO

Text: Donna argues that NASCO is also liable for the wrongful death of Roberts based upon an alleged defect in the design of the forklift. Donna asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to resolve because, she argues, NASCO never made a showing that the forklift was not defective. She states in her brief that [i]t is axiomatic that until the defendant makes a showing that the product was non-defective, no duty arises on the part of the plaintiff to even respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Nevertheless the affidavit of McCain clearly establishes a question of fact for a jury to decide as to the defectiveness of the product. Donna's brief at 23. Donna's claim is without merit for two reasons. First, she misstates NASCO's burden in moving for a summary judgment. We have held that, in a claim alleging a violation of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), `[w]hen the basis of a summary-judgment motion is a failure of the nonmovant's evidence, the movant's burden... is limited to informing the court of the basis of its motionthat is, the moving party must indicate where the nonmoving party's case suffers an evidentiary failure.' Tanksley v. ProSoft Automation, Inc., 982 So.2d 1046, 1051-52 (Ala.2007) (quoting Rector v. Better Houses, Inc., 820 So.2d 75, 80 (Ala.2001)). In an AEMLD claim the plaintiff must affirmatively show that the product was sold with a defect or in a defective condition. Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 581 So.2d 835, 836-37 (Ala. 1991) (citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haven Hills Farm, Inc., 395 So.2d 991 (Ala.1981)). NASCO argued in its motion that it was entitled to a summary judgment because the only evidence Donna had provided to establish that the forklift was defective was McCain's affidavit. However, as noted previously, that document is not contained in the record. Because Donna did not provide substantial evidence indicating that the forklift was defectively designed, NASCO was entitled to a summary judgment. Second, Donna's brief contains no citation to any relevant legal authority to support her contention that NASCO's failure to show that the product was not defective relieved her of the burden of responding to its summary-judgment motion. `When an appellant fails to cite any authority for an argument on a particular issue, this Court may affirm the judgment as to that issue, for it is neither this Court's duty nor its function to perform an appellant's legal research.' Ex parte Showers, 812 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.2001) (quoting City of Birmingham v. Business Realty Inv. Co., 722 So.2d 747, 752 (Ala. 1998), and citing Spradlin v. Birmingham Airport Auth., 613 So.2d 347 (Ala. 1993)). Because Donna's argument as to this issue is without merit, we affirm the summary judgment for NASCO.