Opinion ID: 1894152
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was There a Feasible Alternative Design and Construction of the Control Panel?

Text: Westinghouse also contends that even if the control logic and the control panels are products under the AEMLD, Hannah failed to demonstrate that a feasible alternative design was available that would have reduced or eliminated Jerry Hannah's injuries. In order to prove that a product is defective for purposes of the AEMLD, a plaintiff must prove that `a safer, practical, alternative design was available to the manufacturer at the time it manufactured the [product]. The existence of a safer, practical, alternative design must be proved by showing that: `(a) The plaintiff's injuries would have been eliminated or in some way reduced by use of the alternative design; and that `(b) taking into consideration such factors as the intended use of the [product], its styling, cost, and desirability, its safety aspects, the foreseeability of the particular accident, the likelihood of injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury if that accident occurred, the obviousness of the defect, and the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the defect, the utility of the alternative design outweighed the utility of the design actually used.' Beech v. Outboard Marine Corp., 584 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala.1991) (second emphasis added), quoting General Motors Corp. v. Edwards, 482 So.2d 1176, 1191 (Ala.1985), overruled on other grounds, Schwartz v. Volvo North America Corp., 554 So.2d 927 (Ala.1989). Hannah's experts, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Conner, described five feasible alternative designs Westinghouse could have used in the design and construction of the electrical controls for the CAL. According to Dr. Ryan, Westinghouse could have included a Blackstock Fix in the electrical control design, a feature by which, once the line run button was pressed, the traverse function of the belt wrapper would be locked out. Dr. Ryan did not specifically state that the Blackstock Fix would have eliminated or in some way reduced the injuries Jerry Hannah suffered; however, Dr. Ryan did testify that the Blackstock Fix feature would have locked out the belt wrapper: [Ryan:] ... One of the criticisms is that... Westinghouse should have put in a Blackstock Fix. Being when you hit the line run button, it locks the traverse function of the belt wrapper, locks it in. .... [Ryan:] Stays locked out until the mandrel is collapsed and that, in other words, being the mandrel, what we are calling the Blackstock Fix, or something to that or better than that. That would have helped. An essential element of proof as to whether a safer, feasible alternative design was available is proof that the plaintiff's injuries would have been eliminated or in some way reduced by use of the alternative design. Beech v. Outboard Marine Corp., 584 So.2d at 450. Although Dr. Ryan did not state that Jerry Hannah's injuries would have been eliminated or in some way reduced had the Blackstock Fix feature been in place, because the Blackstock Fix would have locked in the belt wrapper, it is axiomatic that if such a feature had been incorporated Gieske could not have pressed a button on the control panel that would cause the belt wrapper to move forward, killing Jerry Hannah. Dr. Conner testified that Westinghouse could have implemented an optical device that could sense the presence of a person and activate a warning light, which would in turn deactivate power, causing the belt wrapper to stop. According to Dr. Conner, another safety device Westinghouse could have included in its design of the electrical controls was a mechanical device to sense the pressure or weight of an individual and in turn cause a warning signal to occur and then an electrical lockout. Dr. Conner did not state whether these devices alone would make the belt wrapper safe. According to Dr. Conner, an adequate safety regime would also include a barrier guard. Although Dr. Conner did not state whether these devices would have eliminated or reduced the injuries Jerry Hannah suffered, because these devices would have deactivated power to the belt wrapper, it is again axiomatic that if one of these features had been in place, the accident that killed Jerry Hannah would not have occurred. Further, the deposition testimony of John Montoro, a Westinghouse engineer, also creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an emergency override button, pressure mats, or an electrically interlocked barrier was a feasible alternative. Montoro testified as follows: [Q] [D]evice that interlocksautomatically interlocks thethe belt wrapper traverse in function, will itis there any electrical operation reason why it should not be incorporated in there? Not is there a safety reason. Is there an electrical function operatereason why they [Montoro:] The reason why we couldn'tI have already told you we didn't do that. You could put an electrical circuit in to do this? .... [Montoro:] You could. You could make a design like this. Q. And [Montoro:] Use these curtains and lights, curtains so on. Q. And are thesethe pressure pads, the light[,] curtains, are they economically feasible to put in? [Montoro:] I don't know. I have no idea what they cost. I never used them. .... Q. Is there any reason that an emergency override button specific to the belt wrapper traverse out function could not have been installed, incorporated, that would allow energy to flow to the solenoid to send a signal to traverse out irregardless [sic] of any other conditions being met as an emergency device? [Montoro:] Certainly you can put a button in that will directly pick up that relay. .... Q. Is it economically feasible? [Montoro:] It is not going to cost much. Montoro's deposition testimony, together with the testimony of Hannah's experts, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Conner, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a safer, feasible alternative design was available that may have eliminated or reduced the risk of injury to Jerry Hannah. We also note that, in addition to the interlocking device, the presence, and pressure sensing devices, Hannah's experts offered other possible alternatives. Because we have already concluded that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether a feasible alternative was available necessitating a trial on other feasible alternatives, we do not reach these additional issues.