Opinion ID: 1710191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Tractor & Equipment Was in the Business

Text: In the trial court, Tractor & Equipment argued that it was not in the business of selling used tires, but, at best, was only an occasional seller of used tires. In asserting this argument on appeal, it correctly states that in order for a seller of a purportedly defective item to be liable under the AEMLD, that seller must have been in the business of selling items of the kind in question. See Baugh v. Bradford, 529 So.2d 996, 999 (Ala.1988). That requirement excludes isolated or occasional sellers from liability. Id. This rule also applies to AEMLD claims against lessors, as was the situation in Baugh. The AEMLD claim in that case involved a defective log loader that was leased to the plaintiff's employer, a woodcutter, by the defendant pulpwood buyer. There was a lack of evidence that the pulpwood buyer/lessor was in the business of leasing log loaders. It had done so only once in the past, and then as an accommodation to the woodcutter. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court had properly entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's AEMLD claim. Baugh, 529 So.2d at 996. Viewing the evidence most favorably to Rhodes and Roberson, the nonmovants, we find that the record indicates that although Tractor & Equipment did not solicit sales of used tires, it would sell used tires as a part of its business. That business, as stated by Tractor & Equipment, was the business of selling new and used heavy equipment [and] provid[ing] service and parts for such equipment. (Emphasis added.) An officer of Tractor & Equipment, Benny Winfield, testified that when Tractor & Equipment received a used trade-in for a new piece of equipment, it would sometimes dismantle the used equipment for such parts. Inevitably, he said, if someone needed a wheel or a rim or whatever, as a used rim, then you have a tire that becomes available. Later, he added: If somebody came in and asked to buy a used tirewe're in the selling business. Gail Beaird, a co-employee of Rhodes and Roberson who procured used tires for Cordova Clay, testified that he had been purchasing used tires from Tractor & Equipment for a period of approximately 8 to 10 years. Two months before the accident, Tractor & Equipment had sold Beaird two used tires. In the month of the accident, Tractor & Equipment had again sold two used tires to Beaird. Tractor & Equipment argues that it produced evidence showing that its situation was similar to the leasing situation in Baugh  that selling items like the used tire in question here was not common and was not a focus of its business. We emphasize that in reviewing this summary judgment, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovants, Rhodes and Roberson. It is undisputed that Tractor & Equipment was, among other things, in the business of selling used parts. Also, there is evidence that from time to time the used parts it sold included used tires. Certainly, one viewing the evidence most favorably to Rhodes and Roberson could reasonably infer that Tractor & Equipment was in the business of selling used tires. This is not to say that it was, but it is to say that the evidence creates a question of fact for a jury to resolve.