Opinion ID: 1148784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged failure to adequately warn

Text: Clarke contends that Home failed to prove that Mr. Hicklin would have observed, read, and heeded any warning placed on the sander itself and cites Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Cox, 477 So.2d 963 (Ala. 1985), in support of its argument. However, the facts in Squibb can be distinguished from the instant case. In Squibb, the evidence was undisputed that the plaintiff did not read any of the instructions or warnings Squibb provided with its product. There, we held that a plaintiff who does not read an allegedly inadequate warning cannot maintain a negligent-failure-to-adequately-warn action unless the nature of the alleged inadequacy is such that it prevents him from reading it. Squibb, at 971. We found, there, that the presumed inadequacy of Squibb's warning did not proximately cause plaintiff's injury. Squibb, at 971. In the present case, Mr. Hicklin testified that he read the do-it-yourself sanding guide, reviewed the information on the invoice given to him by Mullins, and looked over the writing on the sander. Further, Mr. Hicklin testified that he followed each of the instructions in the do-it-yourself guide. Pursuant to those instructions, he inspected the entire area to be sanded for nail heads and determined that there were no nail heads to be countersunk; he sanded around the edges of the walls as instructed; and after he had finished sanding for the day, he unplugged the sander and coiled up the cord. He also testified that he sanded the floor in accordance with all instructions given him. However, there is no evidence that Mr. Hicklin was ever warned of the possibility of spontaneous combustion of the dust in the dust collection bag. It is undisputed that there was no such warning on the machine itself. In view of the above, we find that there was substantial evidence that, had there been a warning concerning the possibility of spontaneous combustion, Mr. Hicklin would have read it and heeded the warning. Therefore, we find that Clarke was not entitled to a directed verdict or a j.n.o.v.