Jack R. Bates II v. Robert Riley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/01/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110974 Jack R. Bates I I v. Robert R i l e y Robert R i l e y v. Jack R. Bates I I Appeals from D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900032) MOORE, J u d g e . B a s e d on t h e a l l e g e d i n a d e q u a c y o f t h e damages a w a r d e d , J a c k R. B a t e s I I a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f t h e D a l l a s Circuit 2110974 Court ("the trial a w a r d i n g him court"), $10,000 on entered his claim on a against jury's verdict, Robert R i l e y , his c o - e m p l o y e e , a s s e r t i n g t h a t R i l e y w i l l f u l l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y removed of resulted a safety in device injuries from to a machine, Bates. which Riley removal cross-appeals, a s s e r t i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s motion f o r a j u d g m e n t as Riley was reverse a matter entitled the trial to of a court's law. B e c a u s e we judgment as a determine matter of that law, we judgment. Facts The t r i a l t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s the f o l l o w i n g r e l e v a n t f a c t s . Riley testified 1 t h a t , i n A p r i l 2009, he was P e l l e t s i n Selma. team l e a d e r was on Dixie for Dixie his operations Bates t e s t i f i e d crew. t h a t he b e g a n w o r k i n g as P e l l e t s i n A u g u s t 2008 and Michael Holtzapfel, manager f o r D i x i e P e l l e t s , Pellets plant, working for Dixie wood c h i p s who testified were u s e d that had a Riley been an that, at the t o make pellets. E x c e r p t s of R i l e y ' s v i d e o - d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y were p l a y e d b e f o r e the j u r y . F o l l o w i n g the c l o s e of B a t e s ' s case¬ i n - c h i e f , R i l e y a l s o t e s t i f i e d a t the t r i a l . We h a v e c i t e d h i s t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e v i d e o d e p o s i t i o n and f r o m t h e trial interchangeably to the extent that the testimony is consistent. 1 2 2110974 According to H o l t z a p f e l , the process a t the p l a n t incorporates t h e u s e o f p o c k e t f e e d e r s , w h i c h g r i n d t h e c h i p s a n d f e e d them i n t o a hammer m i l l , the chips u n t i l and another s e r i e s o f g r i n d e r s t h a t g r i n d t h e y became r e a l l y fine, almost so t h a t t h e c h i p s c a n be c o m p r e s s e d i n t o p e l l e t s . powder-like, Holtzapfel s t a t e d t h a t t h e p o c k e t f e e d e r s have magnets on them t o p r e v e n t sparks c a u s e d b y m e t a l c o n t a c t i n g m e t a l b e c a u s e , he s a i d , once t h e wood c h i p s a r e f i n e l y g r o u n d , a s p a r k c o u l d c r e a t e a f i r e i n t h e hammer m i l l Riley t h a t c o u l d l e a d t o an e x p l o s i o n . testified that t h e magnets on t h e p o c k e t feeders a r e c l e a n e d " [ m ] a y b e once a s h i f t " a n d t h a t t h e m a c h i n e s w o u l d also c l o g up s o m e t i m e s Holtzapfel also two o r t h r e e testified that times a shift o r more. the machines c l o g r o u t i n e l y . He s t a t e d t h a t R i l e y was e x p e r i e n c e d a n d good a t c l e a n i n g t h e c l o g s and g e t t i n g t h e machines r u n n i n g again. Ernest Shears, who h a d b e e n b o t h t h e s a f e t y d i r e c t o r a n d a team l e a d e r f o r Dixie Pellets, testified that the Occupational Safety and H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t , i f you e n t e r o r b r e a k t h e p l a n e o f a n y m o v i n g e q u i p m e n t o r remove a g u a r d o r go a r o u n d , over, out u n d e r , o r t h r o u g h a g u a r d , t h e m a c h i n e h a s t o be l o c k e d and a l l t h e e n e r g y t o t h e machine 3 h a s t o be c u t o f f . 2110974 According t o S h e a r s , t o l o c k o u t and t a g o u t a p o c k e t an o p e r a t i o n feeder, l o c k w o u l d be p l a c e d on t h e p o c k e t f e e d e r , t h e p e r s o n who h a d l o c k e d t h e f e e d e r w o u l d t r y t o s t a r t t h e p o c k e t feeder from any and e v e r y point from which i t could be s t a r t e d , a n d , once t h e f e e d e r was d i s a b l e d f r o m o p e r a t i o n , t h e p e r s o n who h a d l o c k e d i t o u t w o u l d p l a c e t h e i r p e r s o n a l on i t ; thus, feeder only t h e p e r s o n who h a d l o c k e d o u t t h e p o c k e t could unlock i t . Shears testified that, to clean the magnets o r t o p l a c e y o u r h a n d i n t h e p o c k e t f e e d e r s a b a d jam, t h e l o c k o u t / t a g o u t followed. device Riley testified procedure that a l i m i t on t h e "magnet d o o r " o f t h e p o c k e t t h e magnet d o o r i s o p e n e d , f a l l s Holtzapfel also lock testified to clean was r e q u i r e d t o be switch i s a safety feeder t h a t , when a n d s h u t s down t h e m a c h i n e . t h a t , when t h e magnet i s removed from t h e p o c k e t f e e d e r , t h e l i m i t s w i t c h i s " t r i p p e d " and t h e machine i s d e a c t i v a t e d . Bates testified t h a t , on A p r i l there 23, 2009, he r e c e i v e d a call on t h e r a d i o t h a t was a " p l u g g a g e " Mill 3 ; he s t a t e d t h a t , when he a r r i v e d a p p a r e n t c l o g , he a s k e d John B r u n s o n , above Hammer a t the s i t e of the who was i n t h e c o n t r o l room, t o g i v e h i m a r e a d o u t o f t h e amps on t h e hammer m i l l s o 4 2110974 t h a t he c o u l d d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p o c k e t f e e d e r was Bates t e s t i f i e d low amperage, which clogged. t h a t the readout had i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e so he d i d n o t t h i n k t h e r e was i n d i c a t e d t o him there was a clog any was throughput, somewhere. Bates s t a t e d t h a t he b e g a n b a n g i n g on t h e s i d e o f t h e h o p p e r and on the area above t h e p o c k e t f e e d e r w i t h a p i e c e o f c o n d u i t , or m e t a l e l e c t r i c a l p i p e , i n hopes o f d i s l o d g i n g t h e m a t e r i a l and getting the flow testified going back through t h a t he c o n t a c t e d the pocket feeder. He B r u n s o n i n t h e c o n t r o l room and t o l d h i m t o power down t h e hammer m i l l and t h a t he t h e n p u l l e d t h e magnet d o o r open and b e g a n u s i n g w h i c h i s l a r g e r and h e a v i e r the material testified in t h a t he v a g u e l y the area, According blockage, t h a t was the iron, to knock loose feeder. Bates he h a d b e e n f o c u s e d the angle iron d i d not on h i s work. clear a l l the so he h a d s e t i t o u t o f t h e way and h a d s t e p p e d b a c k conduit material the pocket of angle r e c a l l e d t h a t someone e l s e h a d b e e n to grab a p i e c e of c o n d u i t . the than the conduit, clogging b u t , he s a i d , to Bates, a piece to clogging conduit. unplug the He t e s t i f i e d clog but t h a t he b e g a n that there was using more t h e m a c h i n e t h a t he c o u l d n o t g e t t o w i t h B a t e s s t a t e d t h a t he t h e n s t u c k h i s h a n d 5 into 2110974 the machine t o knock t h e m a t e r i a l when he d i d s o , t h e p o c k e t o u t o f t h e way a n d t h a t , feeder a c t i v a t e d and p u l l e d h i s r i g h t hand i n t o t h e machine, c a u s i n g Riley shut testified that the pocket feeder o f f by the time machine and t h a t together. He he him s e r i o u s had a l r e a d y he a r r i v e d t o h e l p and B a t e s testified d o o r , he h a d h e l d t h e l i m i t Bates had opened that, when switch, they injuries. been unclog the t h e magnet door opened t h e magnet w h i c h i s mounted t o t h e side of the casing of the pocket feeder, t o keep t h e machine f r o m s h u t t i n g o f f w h i l e t h e y u n c l o g g e d i t b e c a u s e , he s a i d , i f the soft-start motor on t h e hammer mill i s shut down, t h e p r o c e s s t o r e s t a r t i t s o m e t i m e s t a k e s 20 o r 30 m i n u t e s a n d , on the day o f t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e y had been p r e s s e d at the p l a n t . he had h e l d f o r production R i l e y t e s t i f i e d that, before Bates's accident, the l i m i t switch while unclogging machines as o f t e n a s once a d a y . R i l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n d B a t e s w o r k e d to unplug the clog f o r approximately t h a t , d u r i n g t h a t time, switch to completely. prevent he h a d c o n t i n u e d the Riley stated hammer that mill 15 t o 20 m i n u t e s a n d t o h o l d up t h e l i m i t from shutting he h a d t h o u g h t that he a n d B a t e s were f i n i s h e d c l e a n i n g t h e c l o g when he saw B a t e s 6 down step 2110974 b a c k t o p u t h i s a n g l e i r o n down and t h a t , a t t h a t t i m e , he h a d called the c o n t r o l room on h i s r a d i o t o r e q u e s t a "bump," w h i c h i s a q u i c k s t a r t and s t o p f r o m t h e c o n t r o l room t h a t i s used t o j o l t free. the machine t o t r y t o b r e a k t h e c l o g g e d m a t e r i a l A c c o r d i n g t o R i l e y , a f t e r he c a l l e d f o r t h e bump, B a t e s p l a c e d h i s h a n d i n s i d e t h e m a c h i n e and t h e m a c h i n e causing severe i n j u r i e s activated, t o B a t e s ' s hand. Procedural History On M a r c h 17, 2010, B a t e s f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t R i l e y , a l l e g i n g t h a t R i l e y had caused h i s i n j u r i e s by w i l l f u l l y i n t e n t i o n a l l y removing a s a f e t y d e v i c e . on April 14, complaint. close 2010, A trial denying was the a matter of allegations made an o r a l l a w ; the t r i a l in Bates's 2011. At the motion judgment as motion. At the c l o s e of a l l of the evidence, R i l e y his motion for a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r and R i l e y f i l e d an a n s w e r h e l d on December 5-8, of Bates's evidence, R i l e y 2 for a court denied that renewed f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w and B a t e s moved denied both motions. o f l a w as w e l l ; t h e t r i a l Following the t r i a l , the t r i a l court court A l t h o u g h B a t e s h a d o r i g i n a l l y named a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t s i n h i s c o m p l a i n t , t h o s e d e f e n d a n t s were l a t e r d i s m i s s e d on Bates's motion. 2 7 2110974 e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , f i n d i n g i n f a v o r o f B a t e s and a w a r d i n g h i m damages i n t h e amount o f $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . December 20, 2011, Bates filed a motion for a a t t a c k i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e damages a w a r d . 2012, Riley filed an o p p o s i t i o n trial. On M a r c h 18, denying Bates's notice 2012, 2012, motion new Alabama trial. Riley filed his notice of Supreme Court on Bates transferred both the 8, appeal and the new order filed his on A p r i l 27, cross-appeal to the 2012. May for a c o u r t e n t e r e d an o f a p p e a l t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t and trial, On J a n u a r y 3, to Bates's motion the t r i a l for a new On a The supreme court cross-appeal to c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code this 1975. Discussion Bates denying argues on h i s motion appeal for a that new the trial trial because, amount o f damages a w a r d e d by t h e j u r y was cross-appeal, Riley argues that the court erred he says, inadequate. trial court d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w We the In his erred in because, he s a y s , B a t e s f a i l e d t o p r o v e e a c h o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f § 1 1 ( c ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. in 25-5- f i r s t address the m e r i t s of the cross-appeal. 8 2110974 " I n D e l c h a m p s , I n c . v. B r y a n t , 738 So. 2d 824 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w : "'When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n for a [judgment as a m a t t e r of law ( " J M L " ) ] , t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d the t r i a l c o u r t used i n i t i a l l y i n g r a n t i n g or d e n y i n g a JML. Palm H a r b o r Homes, I n c . v. C r a w f o r d , 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1997) . Regarding questions of f a c t , the ultimate question i s w h e t h e r t h e nonmovant h a s presented s u f f i c i e n t evidence to allow the c a s e o r t h e i s s u e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . C a r t e r v. H e n d e r s o n , 598 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1992) . F o r a c t i o n s f i l e d a f t e r June 11, 1987, t h e nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" i n order t o w i t h s t a n d a motion f o r a JML. See § 12-21-12, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989) . A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f h a s produced s u b s t a n t i a l evidence c r e a t i n g a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e jury. Carter, 598 So. 2d a t 1353. I n r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s Court views the evidence i n the l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw. M o t i o n I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . v. P a t e , 678 So. 2d 724 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . R e g a r d i n g a q u e s t i o n o f law, however, this Court i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g . R i c w i l , I n c . v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So. 2d 1126 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' "738 So. 2d a t 830-31." 9 2110974 L e o n a r d v. Cunningham, 4 So. 3d 1181, 1184 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Section Compensation 25-5-11, A l a . Code 1975, a part of the A c t , § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, Workers' addresses actions against t h i r d p a r t i e s f o r employment-related i n j u r i e s resulting from w i l l f u l conduct; " w i l l f u l conduct" includes "[t]he w i l l f u l and i n t e n t i o n a l removal from a machine of a s a f e t y guard or s a f e t y d e v i c e provided by t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r o f t h e m a c h i n e w i t h knowledge t h a t i n j u r y or death would l i k e l y or p r o b a b l y r e s u l t from the r e m o v a l ; p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t removal of a guard or device s h a l l n o t be w i l l f u l conduct u n l e s s the removal d i d , i n f a c t , i n c r e a s e the danger i n t h e u s e o f t h e m a c h i n e and was n o t done f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r e p a i r o f t h e m a c h i n e o r was n o t p a r t o f an i m p r o v e m e n t o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e m a c h i n e w h i c h rendered the safety device unnecessary or ineffective." Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-11(c)(2). I n H a r r i s v. G i l l , Alabama that Supreme C o u r t must be met 585 So. outlined 2d 831, the t o make a p r i m a 835 ( A l a . 1991), following four f a c i e case under elements § 11(c)(2): "1. provided The s a f e t y g u a r d o r d e v i c e by t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r o f t h e must have b e e n machine; "2. The s a f e t y g u a r d o r d e v i c e removed f r o m t h e m a c h i n e ; must have b e e n 10 the 25-5- 2110974 "3. The r e m o v a l o f t h e s a f e t y g u a r d o r d e v i c e must have o c c u r r e d w i t h k n o w l e d g e t h a t i n j u r y w o u l d p r o b a b l y o r l i k e l y r e s u l t f r o m t h a t r e m o v a l ; and "4. The r e m o v a l o f t h e s a f e t y g u a r d o r d e v i c e must n o t have b e e n p a r t o f a m o d i f i c a t i o n o r an improvement t h a t r e n d e r e d the s a f e t y g u a r d or d e v i c e unnecessary or i n e f f e c t i v e . " Riley argues physically that, removed f u n c t i o n a l i t y was H a r r i s was n o t met because from the the limit switch pocket feeder u n a f f e c t e d , the second element and, t h e r e f o r e , was never and its outlined in as a m a t t e r o f l a w , he i s not l i a b l e under § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( c ) ( 2 ) . In Bailey v. worker's thumb was machine; his Hogg, would have caught thumb worker's employer was So. 2d 498, 499 between a b e l t amputated in ( A l a . 1989), and the a pulley accident. covered the p u l l e y , I d . a t 499. to the safety but the guard had not In h o l d i n g t h a t the w i l l f u l guard equated to the removal a on a The had r e c e i v e d w i t h the machine a g u a r d installed. install 547 that been failure of the s a f e t y g u a r d p u r s u a n t t o § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( c ) ( 2 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court stated: "By m a k i n g t h e w i l l f u l and i n t e n t i o n a l r e m o v a l of a s a f e t y g u a r d t h e b a s i s f o r a c a u s e o f a c t i o n w i t h o u t the h i g h e r burden of p r o o f of ' i n t e n t t o injure' found i n subsection [25-5-11](a), the l e g i s l a t u r e acknowledged the i m p o r t a n t p u b l i c p o l i c y 11 2110974 of promoting safety i n the workplace and t h e importance o f such guards i n p r o v i d i n g such s a f e t y . The same d a n g e r s a r e p r e s e n t when an a v a i l a b l e s a f e t y g u a r d i s n o t i n s t a l l e d as a r e p r e s e n t when t h e same g u a r d h a s b e e n removed. To s a y t h a t an i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g from t h e w i l l f u l and i n t e n t i o n a l r e m o v a l o f a s a f e t y g u a r d i s a c t i o n a b l e b u t t h a t an i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g from t h e w i l l f u l and i n t e n t i o n a l f a i l u r e t o i n s t a l l t h e same g u a r d i s n o t c o n t r a v e n e s t h a t i m p o r t a n t p u b l i c p o l i c y . To h o l d t h a t t h e willful and i n t e n t i o n a l f a i l u r e to install an a v a i l a b l e s a f e t y guard i s not a c t i o n a b l e would a l l o w s u p e r v i s o r y e m p l o y e e s t o o v e r s e e a s s e m b l y o f new machinery, i n s t r u c t t h e i r employees n o t t o i n s t a l l t h e s a f e t y g u a r d s , a n d t h e n , when an e m p l o y e e i s i n j u r e d due t o t h e l a c k o f a s a f e t y g u a r d , c l a i m immunity from s u i t . " Id. a t 499-500. Relying held on t h e r e a s o n i n g i n B a i l e y , t h e supreme court i n H a r r i s , supra, that the "removal" of a s a f e t y device o c c u r s when a m a c h i n e i s p e r m a n e n t l y a l t e r e d t o bypass d e v i c e and r e n d e r i t i n e f f e c t i v e f o r i t s s a f e t y p u r p o s e s . also Cunningham v. S t e r n , employees 628 So. 2d 576 who a l l o w e d w o r k e r that See ( A l a . 1993) ( c o - t o o p e r a t e p r e s s t h a t had been m o d i f i e d t o b y p a s s p a l m - c o n t r o l b u t t o n s were n o t e n t i t l e d t o summary judgment since the a c t of bypassing safety device c o n s t i t u t e d removal o f s a f e t y d e v i c e f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 25-511(c) ( 2 ) ) . 72 I n Haddock v . M u l t i v a c , I n c . , 703 So. 2d 969, 970¬ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , an e m p l o y e e was i n j u r e d when h i s 12 2110974 h a n d was caught i n the " f o r m i n g d i e " of a machine; the guard t h a t covered the forming-die o r b y p a s s e d , by a j u m p e r w i r e . properly, the removed. Id. at genuine a r e a had issue I f t h e g u a r d had of This court Citing been w o r k i n g material fact summary j u d g m e n t on Haddock, Bates guard existed and we that claim. argues that regarding the the limit pocket switch, feeder R i l e y d i d not the from We disagree. while Id. "bypass" co-employee render the safety device removing the the limit simply redesigned h e l d i t up H a l l m a r k v. Duke, remained from the w i t h i n the at issue ineffective, machine. operational at meaning so as So. 2d 1058 In t h i s a l l times; 13 (Ala. 1993), the to essentially case, Riley t o keep t h e m a c h i n e f r o m s h u t t i n g o f f . 624 the open, In a l l of those cases, machine completely safety device switch the the removal magnet d o o r was "bypass" t h a t s a f e t y device had of designed to prevent the o f H a r r i s , Cunningham, o r Haddock. the A l t h o u g h R i l e y h e l d down safety device running a the reversed s a f e t y d e v i c e by R i l e y f a l l s w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f under § 25-5-11(c) (2). was d e c i d e d i n Haddock t h a t employee's c l a i m under § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( c ) ( 2 ) , lower court's been d i s e n g a g e d , m a c h i n e w o u l d have s h u t down i f t h e 972. safety the In supreme 2110974 c o u r t h e l d t h a t , a s s u m i n g c e r t a i n l i d s a n d v a l v e s on a m a c h i n e c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d s a f e t y d e v i c e s , t h e defendant co-employees c o u l d n o t be l i a b l e had u n d e r § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( c ) ( 2 ) when t h o s e devices n o t been b y p a s s e d t o p r e v e n t t h e i r p r o p e r f u n c t i o n i n g and remained f u l l y o p e r a t i o n a l a t the time of the a c c i d e n t ; simply had n o t been u s e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t Likewise, i n S h a r i t v. H a r k i n s , they co-employees. 564 So. 2d 876, 877 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , an e m p l o y e e was r e q u i r e d t o u s e an o x y g e n - n a t u r a l g a s t o r c h i n removing d e f e c t s from l a r g e s t e e l s l a b s produced a t his employer's s t e e l p l a n t . for the flows another o f oxygen control, pounds o f p r e s s u r e a The t o r c h h a d s e p a r a t e and n a t u r a l lever, that controls gas t o t h e n o z z l e released oxygen to the nozzle; the high-pressure under and 150 oxygen i s what a c t u a l l y c u t t h e m e t a l . I d . On t h e d a t e o f t h e a c c i d e n t that t h e employee occurred oxygen-control constant flow torch nozzle. i n that lever case, i n the "open" had "pinned" the position, causing o f o x y g e n u n d e r 150 pounds o f p r e s s u r e Id. While working, a to the t h e employee dropped t h e t o r c h ; t h e f l o w o f oxygen caused t h e t o r c h t o "'snake around' much like an u n a t t e n d e d water hose under high pressure," i n j u r i n g t h e e m p l o y e e , u n t i l he was a b l e t o g r a b t h e t o r c h a n d 14 2110974 remove the employee control pin sued lever from his the oxygen-control co-employee, constituted a lever. asserting safety device Id. that the and that The oxygenthe co- e m p l o y e e had w i l l f u l l y a l l o w e d t h a t d e v i c e t o be d i s e n g a g e d o r made i n o p e r a b l e . Bailey, I d . a t 878. In d i s t i n g u i s h i n g S h a r i t t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t from stated: "The c r i t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n B a i l e y [v. Hogg, 547 So. 2d 498 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , ] and t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i s t h a t i n B a i l e y t h e d e f e n d a n t was provided with g u a r d s t h a t were a p a r t o f t h e e q u i p m e n t d e l i v e r e d w i t h t h e m a c h i n e and t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o p u t those guards i n p l a c e . That s i m p l y i s not the case b e f o r e us. [The e m p l o y e e ] a l l e g e s t h a t [the coemployee] w i l l f u l l y d i s a b l e d a s a f e t y d e v i c e that was a l r e a d y i n p l a c e on t h e e q u i p m e n t and had not been removed. We believe that the evidence e s t a b l i s h e s a t most t h a t [ t h e c o - e m p l o y e e ] f a i l e d t o c o r r e c t a p o s s i b l y u n s a f e p r a c t i c e o f some o f h i s employees." 564 So. The 2d a t 878. circumstances i n the present case are more a k i n t h o s e i n S h a r i t t h a n t h o s e i n H a r r i s , Cunningham, and Haddock. L i k e i n S h a r i t , R i l e y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the unsafe p r a c t i c e manually and temporarily l i m i t e d time w h i l e to expand include the the d i s a b l i n g the h i s t a s k was holdings temporary, in being Harris, limit Haddock, manual d i s a b l i n g of 15 switch performed. and a to We for a decline Bailey safety of to device 2110974 t h a t o t h e r w i s e r e m a i n s a t t a c h e d t o t h e m a c h i n e a n d o p e r a t e s as i t was d e s i g n e d t o p e r f o r m . To do so w o u l d i m p r o p e r l y e x p a n d the meaning o f § 25-5-11(c)(2) than t o encompass s o m e t h i n g other "removal." Because Bates failed to present substantial evidence c r e a t i n g a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e a s t o w h e t h e r R i l e y h a d "removed" a s a f e t y d e v i c e , which a c t i o n r e s u l t e d i n Bates's i n j u r y , conclude that the t r i a l court e r r e d i n denying R i l e y ' s f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . trial the opinion. motion We, t h e r e f o r e , r e v e r s e t h e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , cause we a n d we remand f o r t h e e n t r y o f a judgment c o n s i s t e n t with this B e c a u s e o f o u r d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l , we n e e d n o t d i s c u s s t h e m e r i t s o f B a t e s ' s a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n and Donaldson, Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s Thompson, P . J . , J J . , concur. i n the result, joins. 16 with writing, which 2110974 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t . A l t h o u g h I agree t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e p r e s e n t erred favor by f a i l i n g of different that to enter Robert Riley, a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r I reach that the evidence presented at t r i a l of law i n conclusion r a t i o n a l e t h a n does t h e m a i n o p i n i o n . was under result" limit switch. Riley was insufficient of 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( c ) ( 2 ) . that occurred, the purpose of the l i m i t switch I I intended dislodge l i k e the to place t h e "bump" t h a t J a c k R. h i s hand i n t h e p o c k e t f e e d e r t o Bates had f i n i s h e d h i s t a s k , and, t h u s , R i l e y p r o c e e d e d t o t h e n e x t step in more and he was n o t aware a t t h e t i m e he m a n u a l l y b y p a s s e d t h e l i m i t s w i t c h and o r d e r e d Bates likely Although u n d e r s t o o d t h a t i t was d e s i g n e d t o p r e v e n t a c c i d e n t s one to from h i s d e c i s i o n t o m a n u a l l y bypass t h e A l a . Code aware a I conclude e s t a b l i s h t h a t R i l e y knew " t h a t i n j u r y o r d e a t h w o u l d or p r o b a b l y case of the c l o g ; the process, as he unclogged the pocket been careless Riley believed h a d many feeder. and n e g l i g e n t , times before when he h a d What R i l e y d i d may w e l l but to permit basis of a w i l l f u l - c o n d u c t claim against r e n d e r "any n e g l i g e n c e that have i t t o form t h e a co-employee would t h a t p e r t a i n s t o s a f e t y o r adds t o [an 17 2110974 employee's] r i s k our supreme ... a c t i o n a b l e , " w h i c h r e s u l t , court, i s precluded under H a l l m a r k v. Duke, 624 So. 2d 1058, 1062 Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . 18 § according to 25-5-11-(c)(2). ( A l a . 1993).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.