Opinion ID: 1635488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Claims Against PROSOFT, Inc., and ProSoft Automation

Text: Tanksley alleged in count one of his final amended complaint that he was entitled to recover pursuant to the Alabama Manufacturer's Extended Liability Doctrine against PROSOFT, Inc., because it failed to provide pinch-point guards or a means of locking out the No. 4 pickle line while maintenance was being performed on the line and failed to warn Tanksley of the danger of performing maintenance on the pickle line while it was energized. Count two of the complaint alleged that Tanksley was entitled to recover against ProSoft Automation under the AEMLD as the successor in liability of [PROSOFT], Inc. Both PROSOFT, Inc., and ProSoft Automation (collectively the ProSoft defendants) filed motions for a summary judgment. [8] On appeal, Tanksley argues that the ProSoft defendants failed to present substantial evidence indicating that there was no genuine issue of material fact and thus did not shift the burden to him to produce substantial evidence creating such an issue. We disagree. The ProSoft defendants presented an affidavit of Stephen Young, the former part owner of PROSOFT, Inc., and founder, part owner, and former president of ProSoft Automation. [9] Young stated that PROSOFT, Inc., had contracted with U.S. Steel to perform upgrade work on the drive and control systems of the pickle line in the 1990s; ProSoft Automation was later contracted to perform certain mechanical work on the line. Neither company, Young asserted, played a role in installing the rolls that created the pinch point or in installing the air dryer where Tanksley was injured, neither company was involved in designing or installing any guards, and neither company was involved in analyzing whether any guards were necessary. The ProSoft defendants also presented portions of Dr. Stephens's deposition in which he agreed that there were practical problems in placing guards in the front of steel-coil rollers because the guards would deny access when rethreading the steel coils and would thus have to be removed for the rethreading process. We hold that the ProSoft defendants presented substantial evidence indicating that they were not the manufacturer or seller of the portion of the No. 4 pickle line that lacked pinch-point guards. Additionally, Dr. Stephens's testimony presents substantial evidence indicating that the addition of pinch-point guards was not practical and would not have prevented Tanksley's injuries because the guards would have had to have been removed to perform the work Tanksley was performing. See Yarbrough v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 So.2d 478, 482 (Ala.1993) (affirming summary judgment in favor of a defendant manufacturer in an AEMLD case because the there was no evidence to show that the utility of an alternative design outweighed the utility of the design actually used). [10] Therefore, the burden shifted to Tanksley to produce substantial evidence of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on his claim that the ProSoft defendants were liable for failing to provide pinch-point guards. The ProSoft defendants also produced substantial evidence in the form of depositions and affidavits from U.S. Steel employees indicating that the No. 4 pickle line was equipped with several devices capable of preventing the line from moving  including lockouts at the bliss mill and the trimmer and the pickle section on/off button on the Allen-Bradley control panel. The employees further testified that these devices would have prevented the movement of the pickle line had they been used. This evidence, like the evidence produced by Rockwell discussed above, is substantial evidence indicating that the pickle line was not defective for failure to provide a means of locking out the pickle line during periods of maintenance on the line. It appears from the record that Tanksley filed no memorandum in response to the ProSoft defendants' motions for a summary judgment. Instead, on September 16, 2005, Tanksley filed an affidavit by Dr. Stephens. In this affidavit, Dr. Stephens testified that it was feasible to construct the pickle line with delayed-start technology that would warn nearby workers that the line was about to move. [11] Dr. Stephen's affidavit is not substantial evidence indicating that the ProSoft defendants were liable for failing to provide pinch-point guards, and it does not provide substantial evidence indicating that the pickle line was defective for failing to provide a means of locking out the pickle line while maintenance was being performed on the line. In short, Dr. Stephens's affidavit does not create a genuine issue of fact as to any of the claims found in Tanksley's complaint and addressed in the ProSoft defendants' motions for a summary judgment. Instead, it addresses only the failure to use delayed-start technology, a new theory of liability and an alleged defect not asserted in complaint and raised for the first time in response to the motions for a summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in entering the summary judgments for the ProSoft defendants. Finally, Tanksley, citing Plant v. R.L. Reid, Inc., 365 So.2d 305 (Ala.1978), and Hannah, supra, argues that the all the defendants owed an independent duty to Tanksley to recommend to U.S. Steel the installation of delayed-start technology, pinch-point guards, and safe work platforms. However, it appears that this issue is raised for the first time on appeal; therefore, it is not preserved for review. [12] See RLI Ins. Co. v. MLK Ave. Redev. Corp., 925 So.2d 914, 918 (Ala.2005) (holding that an argument by the appellant was waived because it was raised for the first time on appeal). In any event, unlike the plaintiffs in Plant and Hannah, Tanksley presented no evidence indicating that such a duty arose in this case. See Plant, 365 So.2d at 306-07 (noting that the plaintiff presented expert testimony that in failing to suggest safety guards on a conveyor system, the defendants failed meet the standards of conduct imposed on licensed engineers); Hannah, 840 So.2d at 857-58 (holding that the plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact by presenting expert testimony that a defendant should have noticed the lack of a safety feature and suggested that it be corrected).