Opinion ID: 1635488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Claims Against Rockwell

Text: Tanksley alleged in count four of his complaint that he was entitled to recover under the AEMLD against Allen-Bradley Company, because it provided no pinch-point guards on the pickle line and no means of locking out the pickle line during periods of maintenance, and because it failed to warn Tanksley of the danger of performing maintenance on the energized Pickle Line under such conditions. . . . Count five of the complaint alleges that Rockwell is the successor in liability to Allen-Bradley Company and is liable under the AEMLD for failing to provide a means of locking out the Pickle Line during periods of maintenance and failing to warn [Tanksley] of the danger of performing maintenance on the energized Pickle Line under such conditions. . . . Because Tanksley alleges that Rockwell is the successor in liability to Allen-Bradley Company, we construe both counts four and five as alleging causes of action against Rockwell, even though count five does not contain the allegation that Rockwell is liable for failure to provide pinch-point guards. The record reveals that Rockwell either manufactured or designed an Allen-Bradley brand control panel that was used on the pickle line and that this is the only Rockwell product involved in this case. Rockwell contended in its summary-judgment motion that the control panel was equipped with a button that would have de-energized the pickle line, thus preventing the movement of the line, and that there were other lockout devices available to turn off the pickle line. Rockwell further argued that Tanksley could produce no testimony identifying any specific defect in the panel or explaining what was wrong with any product designed or manufactured by Rockwell and that Tanksley's own expert testified that he found no defect in the panel. In support of its motion for a summary judgment, Rockwell submitted deposition testimony of U.S. Steel employees who described the operation of the control panel, which was located approximately 15 to 20 feet from the area where the accident occurred. The control panel was also equipped with a pickle section stop button that, when pressed, would stop the line if it was moving, but would not prevent the line from being restarted. The control panel was also equipped with a button labeled pickle section on/off. [1] The button, when activated, would de-energize the pickle line, and a light on the button would illuminate to indicate that the line was de-energized. The button would have to be moved again to re-energize the line; when the line was re-energized the light would turn off. The line could not be restarted until the pickle section on/off button had been deactivated to re-energize the line. Once the line was re-energized, it would be restarted by controls in a control room; simply re-energizing the line alone would not cause the pickle line to move. Rockwell asserted that the pickle section on/off button was an adequate means to render the pickle line safe while maintenance was being performed on the line. Additionally, Rockwell presented testimony indicating that there were three other lockout switches that would have prevented the pickle line from moving had they been activated. Tanksley acknowledges that [a]t the time of the plaintiff's accident, there were several lockout devices available[:] at the bliss mill, the trimmer, and the motor control room, to lock out the movement of the pickle line. Tanksley's brief at 18. [2] Rockwell also argued that Tanksley's own experts could not testify that the control panel was defective. Rockwell submitted a portion of the deposition testimony of Dr. B.J. Stephens, Tanksley's expert witness. Dr. Stephens stated that he offered no opinion as to whether the Allen-Bradley control panel was defective, and he testified that, to the best of his knowledge, on the day of the accident the control panel operated as designed. Dr. Stephens affirmed that he had no criticisms of any Allen-Bradley control panels. He further stated that the pickle section on/off button was an adequate means to de-energize the line, although it would not qualify as a lockout. [3] He testified that if the pickle section on/off button had been activated and had de-energized the line, the accident would not have happened. In an AEMLD action, the plaintiff must affirmatively show that the product was sold with a defect or in a defective condition. Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 581 So.2d 835, 836-37 (Ala. 1991). Without evidence to support the conclusion that the product was defective and/or unreasonably dangerous when it left the hands of the seller, the burden is not sustained. Jordan, 581 So.2d at 837. Proof of an accident and injury is not in itself sufficient to establish liability under the AEMLD; a defect in the product must be affirmatively shown. Townsend v. General Motors Corp., 642 So.2d 411, 415 (Ala.1994). Rockwell argued that Tanksley could produce no evidence indicating that the control panel was defective. When the basis of a summary-judgment motion is a failure of the nonmovant's evidence, the movant's burden . . . is limited to informing the court of the basis of its motion  that is, the moving party must indicate where the nonmoving party's case suffers an evidentiary failure. Rector, 820 So.2d at 80. We hold that Rockwell presented sufficient evidence to inform the trial court of an evidentiary failure in Tanksley's case, namely, that Tanksley's own expert witness could not identify a defect in the Allen-Bradley control panel. Additionally, Rockwell presented substantial evidence indicating that there were numerous means to both lockout or de-energize the pickle line while the line was undergoing maintenance, but that none of those means were used on the day of Tanksley's accident. Therefore, the burden shifted to Tanksley to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. [4] Tanksley filed a memorandum in opposition to Rockwell's summary-judgment motion on July 11, 2005. The memorandum asserted that the No. 4 pickle line was defective because it failed to incorporate a delayed start mechanism. The memorandum did not address an alleged failure by Rockwell to install lockouts or pinch-point guards. In support of the opposition, Tanksley attached a document prepared by Dr. Stephens titled preliminary report. The preliminary report asserted that the pickle line, in general, was defective and unreasonably hazardous because the hot-air dryer had no warnings to instruct workers about pinch points between the moving steel strip and the dryer rollers, because there were no guards to protect workers from accidental contact with pinch points, and because there were no platforms to provide workers with safe locations in which to work on the pickle line. The preliminary report further stated: It is common design practice to incorporate devices that would prevent equipment from being energized while maintenance is being performed. It is also common practice to incorporate a delayed start for equipment capable of being remotely started or for equipment that is controlled by an operator who does not have a full and clear view of the entire machine. During this delay, a klaxon, bell, or other warning device is sounded to warn workers of the impending start or movement of the equipment. No such warning device was incorporated into the # 4 pickle line. The preliminary report does not discuss whether the Allen-Bradley control panel was defective. Tanksley also included in his opposition to Rockwell's summary-judgment motion one page of a document titled Safety Standard for Conveyors and Related Equipment published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (hereinafter the ANSI standards). Additionally, Tanksley included several pages of the transcript of Dr. Stephens's deposition in which he was asked about his mention of the common practice to incorporate a delayed start mechanism for remotely operated equipment. Dr. Stephens testified that he did not know if such a delayed-start mechanism was in use with the pickle line. Tanksley states in his memorandum in opposition to Rockwell's summary-judgment motion that the defendants chose not to explore his claim on this issue. Finally, Tanksley included with the opposition an affidavit of Stephan Moore, a former U.S. Steel employee, who stated that there was no delayed-start mechanism installed on the pickle line. Instead, employees would rely on an announcement over a public-address system indicating that the pickle line was about to start moving. [5] On July 14, 2005, Rockwell filed a motion to strike Tanksley's opposition as untimely filed and to strike the preliminary report because, Rockwell argued, it was unsworn, unauthenticated, and inadmissible hearsay. On appeal, Rockwell continues to argue that the preliminary report was due to be stricken and that it cannot be considered in opposition to its summary-judgment motion. On appeal, Tanksley does not address whether the preliminary report was due to be stricken. Instead, he notes only that because the trial court did not rule on Rockwell's motion to strike Tanksley's opposition, this Court assumes that the trial court considered the materials he filed in opposition. See Hannah v. Gregg, Bland & Berry, Inc., 840 So.2d 839, 850 (Ala.2002). Documents submitted in support of or in opposition to a summary-judgment motion are generally required to be certified or otherwise authenticated; if they are not, they constitute inadmissible hearsay and are not considered on summary judgment. Power Equip. Co. v. First Alabama Bank, 585 So.2d 1291, 1299 (Ala. 1991); Carter v. Cantrell Mach. Co., 662 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.1995) (plurality opinion) (Documents submitted as exhibits to affidavits or otherwise must be admissible in evidence either as sworn or certified copies.); Chatham v. CSX Transp., Inc., 613 So.2d 341, 343-44 (Ala.1993) (Evidence submitted by a nonmovant in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be in a form admissible in evidence; . . . documents must be admissible in evidence as either sworn or certified copies.). See also Rule 56(e), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, the party opposing the documents must generally object to the admissibility of nonconforming documents and move to strike them. Elizabeth Homes, L.L.C. v. Cato, 968 So.2d 1, 4-5 (Ala.2007). Rockwell moved the trial court to strike the preliminary report, and it argues on appeal that the report cannot be considered. Because the preliminary report is not sworn, not certified, and does not comply with Rule 56(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., we will not consider it in our de novo review. Tanksley argues on appeal that there are disputed questions of fact regarding the buttons on the Allen-Bradley control panel. [6] Tanksley contends that there is a dispute in the evidence regarding whether the control button would de-energize the pickle line. He notes that the defendants asserted that the control button would de-energize the line and that the line could not be started until the button was moved a second time and the pickle line was then started from the control room. Tanksley argues that his witness, Moore, testified that [h]itting the stop button would not have stopped the line from starting up again. (Emphasis added.) Tanksley then implies that there is a dispute as to how the control button works. We disagree. Tanksley is conflating testimony regarding two different buttons on the control panel, the pickle section stop button and the pickle section on/off button, into a single, nonexistent control button. It is apparent from the record that Moore was referring to the pickle section stop button when he said that the stop button would not prevent the line from restarting. Rockwell does not contend that the pickle section stop button prevents the line from moving or would have prevented the accident if it had been used; instead, there is uncontroverted evidence that the pickle section on/off button would illuminate when activated and de-energize the line. The line could not be restarted until the pickle section on/off button was de-activated, and then the line could be restarted only in the control room. Even Tanksley's own expert, Dr. Stephens, stated that the pickle section on/off button was an adequate means to de-energize the line, and that if the pickle section on/off button had been activated and the line de-energized, the accident would not have happened. Tanksley also alleges on appeal that there exists substantial evidence of several defects in the pickle line, specifically, there was no delayed start mechanism or audible warning system before the line began to move and there were no platforms to provide a safe area for employees to perform maintenance on the line. First, the claims against Rockwell, as set out in the complaint, allege only that Rockwell was liable for failure to provide a means of locking the line. There is no allegation in the complaint that Rockwell was liable for failing to use delayed-start technology or failing to provide safe work platforms. In any event, without Dr. Stephens's preliminary report, there was no evidence at the time the trial court granted Rockwell's summary-judgment motion regarding the need for delayed-start technology. Additionally, the remaining evidence submitted in opposition to the summary-judgment motion  the ANSI standards, portions of the transcript of Dr. Stephens's deposition, and the affidavit of Stephan Moore  do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to the claims alleged in the complaint and addressed in Rockwell's motion. None of the ANSI standards, the transcript pages of Dr. Stephens's deposition, or Moore's affidavit provides substantial evidence indicating that any Rockwell product was defective as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, although Tanksley attempts to argue that testimony found in an affidavit by Dr. Stephens filed in the trial court on September 16, 2005, creates an issue of fact, that affidavit was filed after the trial court granted Rockwell's summary-judgment motion. Therefore, Tanksley failed to present substantial evidence as to any genuine issue of material fact with respect to his claims against Rockwell, and the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Rockwell is due to be affirmed.