Opinion ID: 1879617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: AEMLD Claim

Text: As to Carruth's AEMLD claim, Pittway argues that the undisputed evidence shows that if the detector did not sound a timely alarm, then Carruth caused this to happen by not using the detector as it was intended to be used. Pittway states that the detector was not intended to provide an unlimited audibility range and that when installed on the first floor it was intended to provide an audibility range within the first floor area. The Pittway pamphlet states: Minimum coverage is one detector on each floor and one in each sleeping area. Pittway says that Carruth misused the detector and that his misuse entitled it to a judgment on his AEMLD claims. Product misuse is an affirmative defense to an AEMLD action. Dennis v. American Honda Motor Co., 585 So.2d 1336 (Ala.1991). Rule 8(c), Ala.R.Civ.P., requires that an affirmative defense be pleaded. See Robinson v. Morse, 352 So.2d 1355 (Ala. 1977). [A] user's misuse of an allegedly defective product is an affirmative defense to liability under the AEMLD, which the defendant must plead and prove. Harris, 630 So.2d at 1028 (emphasis added). Pittway did not plead product misuse. Therefore, the questions raised by Pittway's misuse argument are not properly before us. [6] REVERSED AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON, INGRAM and COOK, JJ., concur.