Opinion ID: 1616376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff's Alleged Misuse of the Shuttle Welder

Text: Next, defendant argues that plaintiff did not make out a case under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine and, therefore, it was entitled to a directed verdict. It theorizes that plaintiff misused the shuttle welder by disregarding its safety devices and attempting to dislodge the Jeep seat frame which had jammed. In McCaleb v. Mackey Paint Manufacturing Co., 343 So.2d 511 at 514 (Ala.1977), citing and quoting Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976), this court stated: The user's misuse of the product constitutes a valid defense under the `extended manufacturer's liability doctrine.' We further observe that [o]rdinarily, the conduct of the plaintiff, in his use of an alleged defective product, is a factual issue for the jury. Beloit Corporation v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 at 997 (Ala. 1976). The principles applicable to the granting of a directed verdict are well established. A directed verdict is proper only where there is a complete absence of proof on an issue material to the claim or where there are no disputed questions of fact on which reasonable people could differ. Deal v. Johnson, 362 So.2d 214 (Ala.1978). In considering a motion for directed verdict, the court must apply Rule 50(e), ARCP, under which a question must go to the jury, if the evidence, or any reasonable inference arising therefrom, furnishes a mere gleam, glimmer, spark, ... or a scintilla in support of the theory of the complaint.... Dixie Electric Company v. Maggio, 294 Ala. 411, 318 So.2d 274 (Ala.1975). In addition, the trial court must view the entire evidence, and all reasonable inferences which a jury might have drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Alabama Power Company v. Taylor, 293 Ala. 484, 306 So.2d 236 (1975); Vintage Enterprises, Inc. v. Cash, 348 So.2d 476 (Ala.1977). Also, this Court's function in reviewing a motion for a directed verdict is to review the tendencies of the evidence most favorably to the non-movant, regardless of a view we may have as to the weight of the evidence, and we must allow such reasonable inferences as the jury were free to draw, not inferences which we may think the more probable. Beloit Corp. v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 (Ala.1976). Caterpillar Tractor Company v. Ford, 406 So.2d 854 at 856 (Ala.1981). Assuming, without deciding, that the defense of misuse of the product properly applies to the instant fact situation, we conclude that the evidence was conflicting as to plaintiff's use of the shuttle welder. A jury question, therefore, was created. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the jury could conclude that he did not misuse the shuttle welder. Defendant's argument on this issue cannot be a basis for reversal.