95 So. 3d 769
Ala.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Jacklyn and Donald McMahon sued Yamaha Motor Corporation et al. for products-liability under AEMLD and negligence, wantonness, breach-of-warranty, and loss-of-consortium after Jacklyn was injured in a July 2007 rollover of a 2007 Yamaha Rhino 660.
- The Rhino was purchased from Montgomery Yamaha-Honda, later dismissed as a defendant; action moved to Montgomery Circuit Court and trial proceeded.
- At trial, plaintiffs withdrew breach-of-warranty; the court granted JMOL on negligence and wantonness while the AEMLD claim went to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for Yamaha on the AEMLD claim; the trial court entered final judgment accordingly; McMahons appeal on the negligence and wantonness rulings.
- The majority reverses on wantonness but affirms the negligence ruling as harmless error, and remands for further proceedings; the exclusion of certain evidence regarding fatalities is upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JMOL on negligence was proper | McMahon asserted substantial evidence of duty, breach, causation, and injury. | Yamaha argued testing and design were adequate and causation and contributory negligence foreclose recovery. | Harmless error; JMOL on negligence affirmed. |
| Whether JMOL on wantonness was proper | McMahon produced substantial evidence of knowledge and deliberate disregard of known risks. | Yamaha argued evidence was insufficient of conscious disregard. | Reversed; wantonness claim submitted to jury; substantial evidence supported wantonness. |
| Whether exclusion of certain fatality-related evidence was proper | Evidence of fatalities showed defendant knowledge of risks. | Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and largely non-applicable to this case. | Trial court did not exceed its discretion; exclusion affirmed. |
| Effect of AEMLD verdict on negligence claim | AEMLD verdict should not preclude negligence claim if substantial evidence supports it. | AEMLD verdict undermines negligence claim consistency; no separate liability. | Negligence claim error deemed harmless; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 835 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976) (AEMLD and negligence elements; design defect support by safer alternative design)
- Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976) (AEMLD framework distinct from common-law negligence)
- West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala. 1989) (standard for substantial evidence in JMOL review)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Burdeshaw, 661 So.2d 236 (Ala. 1995) (elements of negligence in products-liability context)
- Hannah v. Gregg, Bland & Berry, Inc., 840 So.2d 839 (Ala. 2002) (contributory negligence can bar recovery in AEMLD actions)
- Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United Investors Life Ins. Co., 875 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2003) (standard for reviewing JMOL and substantial-evidence)
- Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 871 So.2d 28 (Ala. 2003) (commonality between AEMLD and negligence claims)
- General Motors Corp. v. Jemigan, 883 So.2d 646 (Ala. 2003) (existence of safer alternative design as AEMLD proof)
- Ex parte Essary, 992 So.2d 5 (Ala. 2007) (definition of wantonness in Alabama law)