Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 1 of 22
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10897
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00605-VEH
GLORIA RODGERS, as personal
Representative of the Estate of John
Rodgers, Deceased,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
AWB INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A/
AIRCRAFT TOOL SUPPLY
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(January 16, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and BALDOCK, ∗ Circuit Judges.
∗Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 2 of 22
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge:
While performing maintenance on an aircraft, John Rodgers was struck in
the head by the aircraft propeller and died days later. His wife, Plaintiff Gloria
Rodgers, subsequently sued Defendant AWB Industries, Inc., d/b/a Aircraft Tool
Supply Company (“AWB”), the manufacturer of a tool Rodgers used that day to
perform a maintenance test. Plaintiff alleged a violation of the Alabama Extended
Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (“AEMLD”), breach of warranty, and
negligence or wantonness. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and
the district court granted this motion, holding Plaintiff’s theory of proximate
causation was too speculative. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I.
The following are the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
See Castleberry v. Goldome Credit Corp.,
408 F.3d 773, 785 (11th Cir. 2005).
A. Differential Pressure Tester
The product at issue in this case is AWB’s Model 2E-M Differential
Pressure Tester (“Tester”), which is used to conduct differential pressure tests, also
called compression tests, on engine cylinders. These tests “assess the internal
condition of cylinders and cylinder components on piston engine aircraft” and must
be performed on most aircraft once per year pursuant to Federal Aviation
2
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 3 of 22
Administration (“FAA”) regulations. Doc. 13 at 3. Essentially, a mechanic
introduces a known quantity of compressed air, regulated via the Tester, into an
engine cylinder. A gauge on the Tester displays the amount of compression the
cylinder maintains, thereby revealing the cylinder’s air leakage rate. Excessive
loss of compression in an engine cylinder could indicate problems within the
cylinder and may lead to engine failure.
AWB’s Tester has an air inlet, which has a standard ¼-inch male
compressed air coupling. 1 This air inlet is on the bottom-left side of the Tester
below the left gauge, as shown in the photograph below. A compressed air hose,
which has a standard ¼-inch female coupling, connects to this air inlet coupling.
The Tester contains a mechanism that regulates air so that when high-pressure,
unregulated air enters the device from the compressed air hose, a regulated flow of
air flows out of the Tester. The regulated air leaves the Tester though an output
hose, which has a ¼-inch female coupling that connects to the cylinder via an
adapter plug.
1
A coupling is the part of one tool that connects to another tool.
3
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 4 of 22
Doc. 45-1 at 5.
Often, to create more space to perform the compression test, a compression
tester extension (“Extender”) is used with the Tester. The Extender contains no
air-regulating mechanism and does not perform any function apart from the Tester.
When an Extender is used, the Tester is not connected directly to the cylinder.
Instead, the Extender attaches to the cylinder. Specifically, the ¼-inch female
coupling on the Extender (coupling in the bottom-left of photograph below)
attaches to an adapter plug placed in the cylinder’s spark plug hole. The Tester’s
hose then attaches to the Extender’s ¼-inch male coupling (coupling in the top-
right of photograph below). Because the Extender does not perform any function
apart from the Tester, the size of the Tester hose’s coupling necessarily determines
the size of the Extender’s input coupling.
4
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 5 of 22
Op. Br. at 9.
In accordance with AWB’s Tester instructions, a mechanic performs a
compression test as follows. First, the mechanic removes one spark plug from
each cylinder. Doc. 48-2 at 34. Second, the mechanic rotates the propeller, which
is approximately ten to twelve inches from the front of the cylinder, “until the
piston of the cylinder being tested begins its compression stroke.” 2
Id. Viewing
the evidence in the record in Plaintiff’s favor, it appears the compression stroke
begins after bottom center. Doc. 73-1 at 2. Third, the mechanic installs an adapter
plug—or in this case, the Extender—into the spark plug hole. Doc. 48-2 at 34.
Fourth, the mechanic attaches the Tester hose to the Extender.
Id. Fifth, with the
Tester’s air regulator off, the mechanic attaches an air source of at least 90 psi (i.e.,
2
All the reader possibly needs to know about a piston is that (1) something called a piston exists
in each cylinder of a “piston engine”; (2) the piston cycles through four strokes, the first one
being a “compression stroke,” to create power for the engine; and (3) when the piston is in the
“top dead center” or “bottom dead center” position and air is introduced into the cylinder, the
propeller will not move.
5
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 6 of 22
the compressed air hose) to the Tester’s air inlet.
Id. Sixth, the mechanic opens
the fill valve and adjusts the regulator until the cylinder gauge reads 10–20 psi.
Id.
Seventh, the mechanic rotates the propeller until the piston reaches the top dead
center location.
Id. Eighth, the mechanic adjusts the regulator until the regulator
gauge reads 80 psi.
Id. AWB’s instructions contain a note at this step: “NOTE: At
this stage, enough pressure will build up in the cylinder to force the piston down
from the [top dead center] position; therefore it is recommended that someone
hold the prop to prevent rotation.”
Id. Lastly, the mechanic compares the
readings on the two gauges, which reveal the cylinder’s compression loss.
Id.
B. The July 19, 2012 Incident
John Rodgers was an experienced pilot and aircraft mechanic who worked
on non-commercial aircraft. At the time of the incident, he worked as, among
other things, a self-employed mechanic at Anniston Regional Airport. On July 19,
2012, Scott Wallace and Rodney Findley, employees of a company that leased
hangar space to Rodgers, saw Rodgers pushing a Darter aircraft into the hangar.
Wallace and Findley helped Rodgers push the aircraft the remaining distance into
the hangar. Rodgers voiced frustration with the aircraft and told Wallace and
Findley that he needed to perform a compression test on the engine for the third
time. Rodgers asked Findley if he would help take the cowling off the aircraft, and
6
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 7 of 22
Findley did so.3 Wallace and Findley stood by, waiting to help Rodgers again after
he finished performing the test.
The aircraft had a four-cylinder Lycoming engine. Rodgers proceeded to
perform compression tests, using the Tester, on the two cylinders located on the
right side of the engine. 4 He marked the test results on the cylinders. Findley
reported that, after completing compression tests on both right cylinders, Rodgers
pushed the air hose under the airplane and walked around to the left side of the
engine. At this point, Wallace was standing approximately two feet in front of the
aircraft nose, and Findley was standing by the right side of the aircraft next to the
engine. Wallace later recalled, “at that time it looked like [Rodgers] was starting
to hook up and get everything ready for the compression check[.]” Doc. 48-4 at 7.
Rodgers removed the spark plugs from both left cylinders and connected a
McFarlane Extender to the spark plug hole on the left-front cylinder. Neither
Wallace nor Findley saw exactly what Rodgers did next.
All of a sudden, the propeller rotated quickly and forcefully. The engine did
not make a combustion sound when this rotation occurred. Findley felt a “quick
gust of wind” and looked up to see that Rodgers had a gash on his head. Doc. 48-7
at 6. Findley screamed out to Rodgers. Wallace saw that a propeller blade had
3
The cowling is the sheet of metal on the nose of the plane that covers the engine.
4
All references to the “right” or “left” side of the engine will be explained from the perspective
of the pilot in the cockpit.
7
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 8 of 22
rotated, struck Rodgers in the left side of the head and chest, and stopped. Rodgers
fell to the ground and was unresponsive. He was taken to the hospital with an open
skull fracture and died days later.
Pictures of the scene reveal the location of the relevant tools immediately
after the propeller blade struck Rodgers. The Extender was connected to the left-
front cylinder. The Tester was sitting on top of the left side of the engine, not
connected to anything. The air hose was lying on the hangar floor next to the left
side of the engine. It is undisputed that “Rodgers attempted to connect the shop air
hose to the McFarlane extender which introduced unregulated compressed air into
the [left-front] cylinder causing the propeller to rotate.” Doc. 48-11 at 17. It is
further undisputed that there is no formal procedure that requires connecting a
compressed air hose directly to an engine cylinder. Doc. 48-10 at 21 (AWB’s
expert Matthew Lykins acknowledging there is no written endorsement for
connecting high-pressure air directly to a cylinder).
C. District Court Proceedings
Plaintiff’s theory of the case is that Rodgers grabbed the air hose, mistakenly
thinking it was the Tester hose, and momentarily connected it to the Extender. The
connection of the air hose to the Extender caused compressed air to be inserted
directly into the cylinder, thereby causing the propeller to rotate at great force.
Had it not been possible for the air hose to connect with the Extender—that is, had
8
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 9 of 22
the couplings on the air hose and Extender not been compatible—this accident
could not have occurred. Because the Tester’s output coupling size necessarily
dictates the size of the input coupling on the Extender, according to Plaintiff, the
size of the Tester’s output coupling caused Rodgers’s injury.
Proceeding under this theory, Plaintiff filed suit against AWB, alleging a
violation of the AEMLD, breach of warranty, and negligence or wantonness. 5
Plaintiff proffered two expert witnesses: Dr. Michael Maddox and John Goglia.
Dr. Maddox, a Certified Human Factors Professional, produced an expert report
offering the following opinions: (1) Rodgers “unintentionally connected a high-
pressure air source directly into the cylinder of the engine he was testing”; (2)
AWB failed to conduct a human error analysis to identify the most likely human
errors made while using the Tester; (3) the Tester’s design made Rodgers’s error
more likely to occur; (4) the Tester’s design “violate[s] long-standing guidelines
for the design of such equipment”; and (5) an alternative design of the Tester that
would eliminate the potential for the error Rodgers made exists. Doc. 49-7 at 8–
13.
Goglia, an aviation mechanic expert, was “tasked to review whether an
alternative design for the coupling for the compression test extender used in the
5
Plaintiff’s complaint also named McFarlane Aviation, Inc., the Extender’s manufacturer, as a
defendant. McFarlane, however, entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff and is not a
party to this appeal.
9
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 10 of 22
ATS Pro Differential Pressure Tester Kit would be a practical and safer
alternative.” Doc. 49-8 at 4. Specifically, Plaintiff’s proposed alternative design
consists of changing the Tester’s ¼-inch female output coupling to a ¾-inch
female output coupling. Because the Tester’s output coupling size dictates the
Extender’s male input coupling size, the Extender’s input coupling would
necessarily have to change to ¾-inch to be compatible with the Tester’s output
coupling. This change would preclude the possibility of connecting the air hose to
the Extender. Goglia tested this alternative design on four different engines and
reported that “it worked perfectly.” Doc. 48-12 at 17. Goglia concluded “this
alternative design change is not only safer than the subject design, but is also
practical.” Doc. 49-8 at 4.
AWB produced an expert report by Matthew Lykins. Lykins ultimately
concluded Rodgers failed to secure the propeller while conducting the test and
failed to stay clear of the propeller’s arc. Doc. 48-11 at 24. Had Rodgers not
committed these errors, his injury would have been prevented.
Id. Further, Lykins
opined Plaintiff’s proposed alternative design limits the use of the Tester by
making it incompatible with other adapters and extensions, fails to eliminate the
error committed by Rodgers, encourages mechanics to modify the Tester
themselves, and compromises aviation safety.
Id. Notably, in his report, Lykins
stated, “the undisputed theory is that Rodgers attempted to connect the shop air
10
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 11 of 22
hose to the McFarlane extender which introduced unregulated compressed air into
the [left-front] cylinder causing the propeller to rotate.” Id. at 17.
After discovery, AWB filed a motion for summary judgment. In this
motion, AWB raised the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence,
assumption of risk, and product misuse. Additionally, AWB argued there was no
evidence the Tester was the proximate cause of Rodgers’s injuries and Plaintiff’s
theory relied upon speculation and conjecture. Lastly, AWB argued there was no
evidence to support Plaintiff’s breach of warranty or wantonness claims. After
Plaintiff responded and AWB replied, the court set a hearing on the motion.
On July 21, 2016, two weeks before the hearing, AWB filed a motion to
preclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses. The next day, before Plaintiff could respond,
the district court denied the motion to preclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses as
untimely. The district court reasoned:
Because this Motion, if granted, would totally dispose of Plaintiff’s
product liability claims against AWB, to the extent that it seeks to have
the court not allow these experts’ testimony and opinions to be
considered at summary judgment, it is untimely filed under the parties’
most recent dispositive motion deadline, which expired on March 31,
2016.
Doc. 64 at 2. The court also noted that “if AWB’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 45) is denied and this case is set for a trial, AWB may refile its Motion as a
motion in limine, which the court will consider (after briefing) under the court’s
11
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 12 of 22
standard pretrial order process.” Id. No other briefing was taken on the
admissibility of Plaintiff’s experts.
After the hearing, the district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on all claims in a written opinion. As set forth in more detail below, the
court held Plaintiff’s theory, including her expert witnesses’ opinions in support,
was too speculative. Thus, Plaintiff could not establish proximate causation.
Plaintiff timely appealed, arguing the district court erred by (1) granting summary
judgment based on a lack of proximate cause; and (2) refusing to consider the
causation testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses.
II.
“We review the district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment de
novo, applying the same legal standards that bound the district court.” Hendrix ex
rel. G.P. v. Evenflo Co.,
609 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Nat’l Fire
Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Constr. Co.,
320 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2003)).
Summary judgment is appropriate only “when the pleading, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.”
Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). We “view all evidence and factual inferences
12
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 13 of 22
reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party”—here, Plaintiff. Castleberry,
408 F.3d at 785.
The district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on all claims held Plaintiff had not produced enough evidence of
proximate causation—an element common to all of Plaintiff’s claims. The district
court’s analysis of proximate causation reads in full:
Plaintiff’s claim . . . is that John Rodgers was injured by the Tester’s
defective design in that John Rodgers thought he was connecting the
Tester –– rather than the Extender (which was already connected to the
airplane engine cylinder) –– to the air compressor hose, and that, if the
Tester had been designed differently, he would not have been able to
make that mistake. However, no one knows what John Rodgers was
thinking when he connected one end of the Extender to the airplane
cylinder and the other end to the air compressor hose. A jury would
have to speculate that, despite his years of experience, he confused the
Extender with the Tester. Further, it is undisputed that, if the Extender
or the air compressor hose had been manufactured so that they were not
compatible with each other, the accident could not have occurred.
Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that any aspect of the
design of the Tester or the warnings accompanying it proximately
caused the accident that injured John Rodgers.
Doc. 75 at 11–12. The district court also, in a footnote, held Plaintiff’s “expert
opinions cannot establish proximate causation here, because they are based on
speculation.”
Id. at 12 n.5.
As the attentive reader recognizes, the district court’s description of
Plaintiff’s claim is plainly inaccurate. Plaintiff’s claim is that Rodgers thought he
was connecting the Tester—rather than the air compressor hose—to the Extender.
13
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 14 of 22
That is, he accidently grabbed the air compressor hose instead of the Tester hose.
The remainder of the district court’s analysis does not make sense in light of
Plaintiff’s actual claim. For example, to accept Plaintiff’s claim, a jury most
assuredly would not have “to speculate that, despite his years of experience,
[Rodgers] confused the Extender with the Tester.” Additionally, given the size of
the Tester’s output coupling dictates the size of the Extender’s input coupling, we
are unsure what the district court’s point was in noting “if the Extender or the air
compressor hose had been manufactured so that they were not compatible with
each other, the accident could not have occurred.”
We will assume, for the sake of the following analysis, that the district court
understood Plaintiff’s claim and held, as Defendant argued, it was too speculative
to conclude Plaintiff accidentally grabbed the air hose instead of the Tester and
attached it to the cylinder. We will also assume that this was the district court’s
basis for holding Plaintiff’s expert opinions were too speculative.
We turn to Alabama law on speculation—a place the district court did not
bother to venture despite holding Plaintiff’s theory was too speculative.
Speculative testimony or conjecture cannot serve as the basis for proximate cause.
See Ex parte Mobile Power & Light Co.,
810 So. 2d 756, 760–61 (Ala. 2001).
“[A] conjecture is simply an explanation consistent with known facts or conditions
but not deducible from them as a reasonable inference.”
Id. at 760 (citing Ex parte
14
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 15 of 22
Diversey Corp.,
742 So. 2d 1250, 1254 (Ala. 1999)). “Proof which goes no further
than to show an injury could have occurred in an alleged way, does not warrant the
conclusion that it did so occur, where from the same proof the injury can with
equal probability be attributed to some other cause.”
Id. (citing Ex parte Diversey
Corp.,
742 So. 2d at 1254). But “if there is evidence which points to any one
theory of causation, indicating a logical sequence of cause and effect, then there is
a juridical basis for such a determination, notwithstanding the existence of other
plausible theories with or without support in the evidence.”
Id. (citing Ex parte
Diversey Corp.,
742 So. 2d at 1254).
The record makes clear that Plaintiff’s claim is not too speculative as a
matter of Alabama law and that her theory that Rodgers accidentally connected the
air hose to the Extender is a “reasonable inference” deducible from the evidence.
As recognized by Defendant’s expert, it is undisputed connecting the air hose to
the Extender is what caused the propeller to turn. Doc. 48-11 at 17. The only
dispute is whether Rodgers put compressed air directly into the cylinder
accidentally or intentionally with a different purpose in mind. Defendant states it
is “hotly disputed what test [Rodgers] was going to perform next and completely
unknown what he intended to do next,” Resp. Br. at 21, but we are unpersuaded.
Rodgers was mostly likely attempting to perform a compression test. He told
Wallace and Findley he was performing a compression test. He performed a
15
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 16 of 22
compression test on the right cylinders. He brought all the tools necessary to
perform a compression test to the left side of the engine. He attached the
Extender—which only safe use is for a compression test—to the left-front cylinder.
What else was he doing but attempting to perform a compression test?
Defendant suggests Rodgers intentionally inserted the air hose directly into
the cylinder in an attempt “to listen for the sound of leaking air through an engine
valve or around a piston ring.” Resp. Br. at 34. In support, Defendant cites an
FAA handbook, which suggests “listening for air leakage at the exhaust outlet.”
Doc. 45-11 at 4. Defendant conveniently ignores that the handbook suggests doing
so “during the compression check,” meaning this listening check requires listening
while the Tester is in use and in no way contemplates inserting an air hose directly
to a cylinder.
Id. (emphasis added). Further, Defendant’s own expert testified he
knew of no “written procedure or recommended process” that would require a
mechanic to “connect an unrestricted compressor hose with at least 90 psi going
through it directly to an aircraft engine.” Doc. 48-10 at 20–21. The evidence
before us shows that Defendant’s theory that Rodgers was performing “another test
or procedure” is in itself speculative.
A jury could reasonably conclude that Rodgers, having stated he was
performing a compression test and set up to perform such a test, accidentally
inserted air into the cylinder in an attempt to perform the compression test. As the
16
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 17 of 22
district court summed up well at the summary judgment hearing, “we all know he
must have thought he attached the tester because otherwise it would be suicide to
do what he did. And we have no reason to think he was trying to kill himself.”
Doc. 77 at 90 (emphasis added).6
Lack of speculation, however, does not necessarily entitle Plaintiff to a
finding of proximate cause in her favor. Plaintiff still bears the burden to present
“substantial evidence of proximate cause.” Morguson v. 3M Co.,
857 So. 2d 796,
800 (Ala. 2003). “Proximate cause is an act or omission that in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and independent causes, produces an
injury or harm and without which the injury or harm would not occur.”
Id.
(quoting Dillard v. Pittway Corp.,
719 So. 2d 188, 192 (Ala. 1998)).
“Foreseeability is the cornerstone of proximate cause.” Dillard,
719 So. 2d at 192.
The Supreme Court of Alabama has repeatedly stated “it is well established that
the question of proximate cause is almost always a question of fact to be
determined by the jury, and that the question must go to the jury if reasonable
inferences from the evidence support the plaintiff’s evidence.” Lemond Constr.
Co. v. Wheeler,
669 So. 2d 855, 862 (Ala. 1995) (citing Garner v. Covington Cty.,
6
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s expert witnesses’ opinions regarding causation are not too speculative
to be considered. We therefore, in accordance with the district court’s order denying
Defendant’s motion to preclude, consider them in this proximate cause analysis.
17
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 18 of 22
624 So. 2d 1346 (Ala. 1993); Marshall Cty. v. Uptain,
409 So. 2d 423 (Ala.
1981)).
Defendant argues that the defective design of the Tester could not be the
proximate cause of Rodgers’s injury because the Tester was not being used when
the accident occurred. The Supreme Court of Alabama, however, has never held
that “use” of a product is a requirement of the AEMLD, breach of warranty, or
negligence or wantonness claims. The Supreme Court of Alabama has explicitly
stated “proof that a product was used as intended is not an element of a prima facie
case under the AEMLD.” 7 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Harris,
630 So. 2d 1018, 1028
(Ala. 1993); see also 2 Ala. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. 32.07 (3d ed. 2018).
Id.
Instead, under the AEMLD, a plaintiff must show:
(1) he suffered injury or damages to himself or his property by one who
sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the
plaintiff as the ultimate user or consumer, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without
substantial change in the condition in which it [was] sold.”
Morguson,
857 So. 2d at 800 (quoting Yamaha Motor Co. v. Thorton,
579 So. 2d
619, 621 (Ala. 1991)). That is, the defective condition of a product, not use of a
product, must cause the injury. See 2 Ala. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. 32.07 (3d ed.
7
Rather, “a user’s misuse of an allegedly defective product is an affirmative defense under the
AEMLD.” Sears, Roebuck & Co., 630 So. 2d at 1028.
18
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 19 of 22
2018) (stating the causation element as follows: “(Name of plaintiff/name of
deceased) was caused (harm/death) by the defect in the (name the product)”
(emphasis added)).
The bizarre circumstances in Bell v. T.R. Miller Mill Co.,
768 So. 2d 953
(Ala. 2000), illustrate that a plaintiff need not be using a product for the product’s
alleged defect to cause an injury. In Bell, while a man went inside a convenience
store, his parked car rolled across a road into a guy-wire attached to a telephone
pole. The telephone pole somehow broke, causing the telephone lines to sag
approximately nine and a half feet over a highway. A recreational vehicle driving
on the highway struck the line, and the line looped over and behind the vehicle. At
this point, the line sagged even lower to approximately one foot above the
highway. Then, the plaintiff’s car struck the line, which lifted her car into the air
and turned it upside down. The plaintiff’s daughter died from this accident. The
plaintiff brought AEMLD and negligence or wantonness claims against the
telephone pole manufacturer. After the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial court
granted a directed verdict for the defendant. On appeal, the Supreme Court of
Alabama reversed, holding the trial court erred in removing the AEMLD and
negligence claims from the jury. The court held the plaintiff produced substantial
evidence that created a factual question to be determined by the jury, namely
whether a design defect or the negligence in manufacturing the pole proximately
19
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 20 of 22
caused the plaintiff’s child’s death. The court noted that the defendant still had an
opportunity to prove its affirmative defenses of lack of causation and intervening
cause to a jury.
Consistent with Alabama’s requirements for AEMLD and negligence
claims, the Bell court focused on whether a jury could find that a design defect or
manufacturer’s negligence caused an injury, not on whether Plaintiff was using the
telephone pole. Accordingly, we decline to impose an additional “use”
requirement that the Supreme Court of Alabama has not imposed upon plaintiffs
and instead remain focused on whether a reasonable jury could find the alleged
defective condition, the Tester’s output coupling size, proximately caused
Rodgers’s injury.
As Defendant’s expert acknowledges, had the Tester’s output had a larger
coupling size, which would necessarily require a larger coupling size on the
Extender’s input, this injury would not have occurred.8 Doc 48-10 at 29 (Lykins
acknowledging the alternative design would have prevented Rodgers from
connecting the air hose to the Extender). Further, the record reveals evidence from
which a reasonable jury could conclude such an injury was foreseeable. First, a
2006 article from an online aviation website shared the following safety tip from
8
Again, let us emphasize the Tester hose’s coupling size dictates the Extender’s input coupling
size, for the Extender’s purpose is to facilitate a compression test.
20
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 21 of 22
an airframe shop manager: “We installed unique couplings on our compression test
adapter. They are different from the couplings on all our air hoses. That way, it is
virtually impossible to connect it to un-regulated shop air.” Doc. 48-16 at 61.
Second, Dr. Maddox, Plaintiff’s human error expert witness, testified: “Even a
cursory examination of potential human errors in the use of the tester and extension
would identify the admission of unregulated, high-pressure air into the cylinder
under test as a critical error, in that it could lead to immediate injury to anyone in
the vicinity of the prop.” Doc. 49-7 at 10. Third, Matthew Lykins, Defendant’s
expert witness, stated he had heard discussions about the potential for mechanics to
accidentally put shop air directly into a cylinder while intending to connect the
Tester, although he had never heard of such incident actually occurring. Doc. 48-
10 at 27. This evidence indicates at least some people in the industry knew the
standard design of differential pressure testers and pressure tester extensions
allowed air to be inserted directly into the engine cylinder and that such a
connection could result in serious injury.
Mindful that “the question of proximate cause is almost always a question of
fact to be determined by the jury,” Lemond Constr. Co.,
669 So. 2d at 862, we
conclude, under Alabama law, the foregoing is “substantial evidence” by which a
reasonable jury could find the Tester’s design proximately caused Rodgers’s injury
and that such an injury was foreseeable. We decline to decide Defendant’s
21
Case: 17-10897 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 22 of 22
alternative arguments, including arguments based on its affirmative defenses, that
the district court did not reach. Neither do we, in this narrow holding, opine as to
the other elements of Plaintiff’s claims. The district court’s grant of summary
judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
22
