Opinion ID: 1153220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Joe Money

Text: As previously noted, the garbage truck involved in this case had two basic componentsthe truck (cab and chassis) and the garbage compaction unit mounted on it. The truck was delivered by GM to Pak-Mor's plant in Virginia, where the garbage compaction unit was mounted. Joe Money, the Pak-Mor distributor that sold the garbage truck to the City of Gadsden, actually purchased the truck from the Pierson Chevrolet dealership in Gadsden; however, an employee of Joe Money picked the truck up at Pak-Mor's plant and delivered it first to Joe Money's plant for a brief inspection of the truck and for servicing of the compaction unit. The inspection of the truck included only a check to determine whether sufficient oil had been put in the engine and water in the radiator, and whether certain parts had been properly lubricated. After this inspection and servicing, which took approximately five hours, the truck was delivered to the City of Gadsden. The undisputed evidence shows that Joe Money did not participate in any way in designing or manufacturing the garbage truck. Clyde Money, an employee of Joe Money, testified as follows: Q. Have you ever had any meetings with Pak-Mor, a representative discussing design changes, where rear-riding steps, side riding steps, were being discussed? A. No. Q. Have you ever been to equipment shows where Pak-Mor, Heil Company, various competitors, might be showing their equipment, and it would be a national thing, people throughout this country would be coming to? A. I've never been to a packer national show. . . . . Q. Mr. Money, has Joe Money Machinery ever made any recommendations to Pak-Mor about design changes, or something that y'all wanted done differently on garbage bodies? A. No. Q. Does Joe Money Machinery have any design engineers among the some 80-82 employees you've told me about? A. No. . . . . Q. Does Pak-Mor conduct, on a frequent or infrequent basis, a meeting of its distributors, either on a regionallet's say the distributors in the southeast would meet in Atlantaor a national basis, where all of the distributors might attend or go to Dallas, Texas, or Washington, D.C., or someplace? A. No. . . . . Q. I think this will be my last question. You told me earlier, and I recall that your company had never made any recommendations as to [a] design change of the garbage body to Pak-Mor; do I recall that correctly? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Has Joe Money ever conducted any independent test, or evaluations, of the garbage body being produced by Pak-Mor? A. No independent tests, no. Pak-Mor speaks for themselves, as far as the volume is concerned. Under the AEMLD, a defendant alleged to be liable as a distributor of a product, such as Joe Money, may affirmatively show that it did not contribute to the alleged defective condition, had no knowledge of it, and had no opportunity superior to that of the consumer or user to inspect the product. In other words, a defendant may show that there was no causal relation in fact between its activities in handling the product and the product's alleged defective condition; provided, however, that this lack of causal relation defense is not available to a defendant who distributes a product under the defendant's trade name. Casrell, supra; Atkins, supra; Johnson v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 555 So.2d 88 (Ala.1989). Joe Money was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, because Townsend and Heald failed to present substantial evidence of a defect in the design of the garbage compaction unit. [4] However, the judgment would have been proper even if substantial evidence of a design defect had been presented. The undisputed evidence shows that Joe Money did not participate in the design or manufacture of the garbage truck, and there is no evidence that anyone employed by Joe Money was aware of any accidents involving Pak-Mor garbage trucks that could have put Joe Money on notice that the positioning of the riding platforms on the rear of the unit was unreasonably dangerous. [5] Joe Money did not sell the truck under a Joe Money trade name, did not employ any design engineers, and had no reason to question Pak-Mor's design of its compaction unit. We held in Atkins that a distributor is not liable for a plaintiff's injuries if he had neither knowledge of the defective condition, nor an opportunity to inspect the product which was superior to the knowledge or opportunity of the consumer. 335 So.2d at 143. The record suggests that Joe Money acted only as a middleman in furthering this truck's journey from its two manufacturers (GM and Pak-Mor) to the City of Gadsden. We conclude that the evidence presents no basis upon which Joe Money can be held liable under the AEMLD for the injuries suffered by Townsend and Heald. The summary judgment was, therefore, proper as to Joe Money.