Bates v. Riley
130 So. 3d 1225
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Bates sued Riley for willful and intentional removal of a safety device from a pocket feeder, causing Bates’s injuries.
- Riley cross-appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment as a matter of law.
- The trial court denied JML motions; Bates prevailed at trial with $10,000 in damages.
- The pocket feeder has a safety device (limit switch) triggered when the magnet door is opened; manipulating the device can deactivate the machine.
- Riley allegedly held the limit switch to keep the machine from shutting down during unclogging; Bates hand entered the pocket feeder, machine activated, injuries occurred.
- The appellate court reversed, holding Riley could not be liable under § 25-5-11(c)(2) for temporary manual bypass; remanded for judgment consistent with this opinion; concurrence offered differing rationale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bates proved ‘removal’ of a safety device under §25-5-11(c)(2). | Bates. | Riley. | No substantial evidence of removal; reversed. |
| Whether temporary manual bypass of a safety device constitutes ‘removal’ under §25-5-11(c)(2). | Bates argues bypass fits removal. | Riley. | Temporary bypass not removal; not liable. |
| What is the proper standard of review for a judgment as a matter of law in this context? | N/A | N/A | Same standard as trial court; substantial evidence required to submit to jury; otherwise JML. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delchamps, Inc. v. Bryant, 738 So.2d 824 (Ala.1999) (standard for JML review described by Alabama Supreme Court)
- Bailey v. Hogg, 547 So.2d 498 (Ala.1989) (willful removal or failure to install safety guard actionable under §25-5-11(c)(2))
- Harris v. Gill, 585 So.2d 831 (Ala.1991) (four elements for prima facie case under §25-5-11(c)(2))
- Cunningham v. Stern, 628 So.2d 576 (Ala.1993) (co-employee bypassing safety device not per se removal)
- Haddock v. Multivac, Inc., 703 So.2d 969 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (genuine issue of material fact regarding removal)
- Hallmark v. Duke, 624 So.2d 1058 (Ala.1993) (not liable when safety devices not bypassed; remain operational)
- Sharit v. Harkins, 564 So.2d 876 (Ala.1990) (distinguishes Bailey; not actionable if device not removed)