Opinion ID: 1616376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Allegation of Substantial Change

Text: Lastly, defendant argues that it was entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence showed the shuttle welder had been substantially changed after it left defendant's hands. Defendant points to the fact that the ground blocks on the shuttle welder were changed. On cross-examination Bob Adams, a witness for the defense and plaintiff's supervisor, gave the following testimony: Q. I will ask you, Mr. Adams, from the time that machine was installed in Piedmont until the time that Mr. Knighton was hurt, did you all modify that welding machine in any manner? A. The only thing we changed was the ground blocks on it, because we went to a different type of ground to get a better weld. Q. But you didn't A. That was all. Q. You didn't change the carriage or the welding guns? A. No, nothing that operates the machine, just the welding is all. Defendant correctly calls to our attention the fact that to prevail under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, a plaintiff must establish that the product was expected to, and did, reach the user without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 at 141 (Ala.1976); Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala.1976). Defendant theorizes that it is logical to infer that the change in the ground blocks increased the frequency of malfunctions of the shuttle welder, thereby causing the accident. It concludes that properly, judgment should have been entered in its favor. We find defendant's argument to be without merit. Plaintiff did establish defendant's liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine by showing that the shuttle welder was substantially unchanged at the time plaintiff was injured. Arnold Martin, plaintiff's expert witness, testified on direct examination that the shuttle welder was substantially unchanged at the date of plaintiff's injury. Proximate cause is an element of a products liability action. A plaintiff must prove that his injury resulted from the defective condition of the product. Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc ., at 133. One commentator has observed: The question of liability of a manufacturer or seller for injuries sustained by the user of an altered product involves the issue of whether the injuries were proximately caused by a defect in the product as manufactured and sold, or by a defect created by the alteration by the user or a third party. Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 1252 at 1253 (1972). In the instant case, we find it to be a reasonable inference that no substantial change occurred to the shuttle welder after its manufacture so as to negate a showing of proximate cause by plaintiff. It is unclear from the record what ground blocks are. Nevertheless, the reasonable inference of the testimony of plaintiff's supervisor is that no substantial change was made to the machine. Plaintiff's expert witness specifically denied that the shuttle welder had changed substantially. Defendant cites no other portion of the record to support its theory. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's denial of defendant's request for a directed verdict. For all of the foregoing reasons, we find no reversible error, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. AFFIRMED. TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur.