Opinion ID: 1833850
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intervening Cause Defense.

Text: We have reviewed the trial Court's entire instruction to the jury, placing particular emphasis on that portion of the charge dealing with proximate cause and intervening cause. We find that under this instruction, including five charges requested in writing by Beloit concerning proximate cause, this question was properly submitted to the jury; and we further find that there is sufficient evidence to support its finding that Beloit's negligent design was the proximate cause, or the proximate contributing cause, of the injury. A basic principle of tort law, so fundamental as to require no citation, is that a tort-feasor whose act or acts contributes in causing an injury may be held liable for the entire resulting loss. Butler v. Olsham, 280 Ala. 181, 191 So.2d 7 (1966); see also Prosser, Law of Torts, 4th Ed., pp. 291-323 (1971). Indeed, the following two charges given at Beloit's request recognize this basic tort principle: 14. The Court charges the jury that the seller of a product such as Beloit Corporation in this matter, is not an insurer against all harm which might be caused by a user of his product. A seller is also not liable in damages where the product sold by it is made unsafe by another person after it leaves the seller's control. Therefore, if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this case that at the time physical control of the papermaking machine referred to in the Plaintiff's Complaint was relinquished to Southern Marathon Corporation it was in a reasonably safe condition, and if you are further reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this cause that modifications were made to the machine by persons other than the Defendant, Beloit Corporation, after the machine was turned over to Southern Marathon Corporation or the Plaintiff's employer, and if you are further reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this cause that the modifications made by persons other than the Defendant, Beloit Corporation, was the sole proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and damages and that the Defendant, Beloit Corporation, was not guilty of any other negligence, then the Court charges the jury that you cannot return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, Beloit Corporation. 14a. The Court charges the jury that the seller of a product such as Beloit Corporation in this matter, is not an insurer against all harm which might be caused by a user of his product. A seller is also not liable in damages where the product sold by it is made unsafe by another person after it leaves the seller's control. [2] There is ample evidence that Beloit was aware that the air chute did not work from the outset when the machine was installed and thus Beloit could foresee the probability that this chute would be removed. Beloit's expert, Mr. Cleiler, testified that the chute as installed would probably not function as an automatic feeder on heavy grades of paper. Secondly, there seems little dispute that these doctor blades were not guards. Mr. Cleiler stated, I do not consider these doctor blades guards. This testimony, together with the exhibits admitted into evidence, constitutes sufficient evidence from which the jury could properly infer that the presence of the blades would not have prevented the accident. Furthermore, Harrell's expert witness, Professor Landry (a design engineer who was currently serving as the National President of the American Society of Safety Engineering), testified: My opinion is that that calendar stack as it was designed and manufactured by Beloit and subsequently shipped to and assembled at the Marathon Paper which was subsequently changed to American Can, does or did, in my opinion, within the known state of the art at that particular time, present a hazardous situation from the viewpoint that the most hazardous part of that machine, the nip point between the in-running rolls, was not protected or guarded in any way to prevent the entry of a man's hand in between the pinch point or in between any of the sets of in-running rolls. The machine also lacked some other considerations from the point of view of safety but that was the principle one. . . . There are instances where automatic feeds break down. They are not always functional. They get out of adjustment. It then becomes necessary to supplement on occasions automatic feed with manual feeding. Sometimes adjustments have to be made on the machine while it is running. Under those circumstances, then you would have the same kind of exposure to the man as if there was no automatic aspect to the machine. So, when that situation prevails, then the prudent and desirable thing and necessary thing from a safety engineering viewpoint is to anticipate those situations and provide the physical barrier guard at, in this instance, the in-running nip point of the rolls. Realizing that the automatic devices may at some time fail or require technical adjustment. . . . then again the proper approach is, considering the safety of the man, to provide for the supplemental protection at the nip point by use of fixed barrier guards. . . . I think the most explosive one is this excerpt from the Accident Prevention Manual published by the National Safety Council in 1955 which shows different types of barrier guards from an angle bar to three bars with spacing in between, in a sense, a round pipe guard that would fit up close to the nip point or to a straight barrier guard, all of which, of course, allow room for the stock to come in here, straight across or from the top roller or the under roller. These are basically principles of the types of barrier guards that are employed in a variety of operational circumstances to prevent a man's hand from getting in the nip point. We hold, therefore, that the intervening cause issue was properly submitted to the jury.