Opinion ID: 1757837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gadsden Fire

Text: Gadsden Fire argues that it is not in the business of selling smoke detectors, as that concept is employed in the AEMLD. It also argues that there was no causal relation between its handling of the smoke detector and the defect, because it merely resold the smoke detector in the same condition it was in when Gadsden Fire received it from Pittway. We disagree with both arguments. Gadsden Fire is in the business of providing fire safety products. It knew that Kathy Richey wanted the best smoke detectors, and, in particular, Gadsden Fire knew that the smoke detectors were going to be installed in a home where elderly people were living and that those people would need the earliest possible warning of a fire. Boggs said he went to a store and purchased a smoke detector that he perceived as being a good brand that should let someone know immediately if there was a fire. Boggs stated in his deposition that his general practice was to charge $4 or $5 for the service of choosing a smoke detector. Additionally, there was evidence that Gadsden Fire did occasionally have smoke detectors in stock. Gadsden Fire is not entitled to a judgment based on a no-causal-relation defense. If the seller of a product has an opportunity to inspect the product that is superior to the opportunity of the consumer, or has knowledge of the product that is superior to that of the consumer, then it is not entitled to a no-causal-relation defense, even where it did not contribute to the defective condition of the product. Caudle v. Patridge, 566 So.2d 244 (Ala.1990). In Caudle, the seller of a four-wheel-drive conversion kit to be installed on a truck was not entitled to a no-causal-relation defense, because he had, at the very least, a superior knowledge of the nature of the trucks on which such kits had been installed. Gadsden Fire was in the business of selling fire safety products. It undertook to choose a smoke detector for Richey. Boggs opened the smoke detector and explained to Richey how it was to be used and where it should be placed. We conclude that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment in favor of Gadsden Fire as to the personal claims of Phillip Dillard and his wife Kathy Lynn Dillard.