Wilbanks v. United Refractories, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
James Stanley Wilbanks appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of United Refractories, Inc. ("United"), a company supplying equipment used in the repair of coke-oven batteries, in Wilbanks's action against United seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained from an explosion involving a ceramic welding machine supplied to Wilbanks's employer by United. On the day of the accident, Wilbanks was a member of a three-person welding team engaged in the process of repairing a coke oven. However, as he attempted to remove a powder hose from the mixing chamber, an explosion occurred, causing the loss of his left hand and burns to other portions of his body. Wilbanks sued United alleging that Wilbanks was injured as the result of the "fail[ure]" of "the subject equipment" and that United had "negligently and/or wantonly fail[ed] to properly inspect and maintain the subject equipment and its component parts." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Wilbanks failed to produce evidence of any causal relationship between his injuries and any alleged acts or omissions of United. "United's summary-judgment motion was due to be granted. The judgment entered for United is, therefore, affirmed."
Download PDF
Rel: 11/16/2012 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111164 James S t a n l e y Wilbanks v. U n i t e d R e f r a c t o r i e s , Inc. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-10-900403) Court WOODALL, J u s t i c e . James Stanley Wilbanks appeals from a summary judgment f o r U n i t e d R e f r a c t o r i e s , I n c . ( " U n i t e d " ) , a company s u p p l y i n g equipment used i n the repair o f coke-oven batteries, i n Wilbanks's a c t i o n a g a i n s t U n i t e d s e e k i n g damages f o r p e r s o n a l 1111164 injuries he s u s t a i n e d f r o m an e x p l o s i o n involving a ceramic w e l d i n g m a c h i n e ("the w e l d e r " ) s u p p l i e d t o W i l b a n k s ' s e m p l o y e r by U n i t e d . We affirm. I. F a c t u a l and P r o c e d u r a l The Background r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e v i e w e d , as i t must b e , i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o W i l b a n k s , shows t h e f o l l o w i n g . W i l b a n k s was i n j u r e d on F e b r u a r y 8, 2008, w h i l e w o r k i n g as an e m p l o y e e o f Drummond Company, I n c . ("Drummond"), a t Drummond's coke p l a n t in Tarrant. The w e l d e r he was working with i n j u r e d was m a n u f a c t u r e d a n d owned b y C o a l ("CPL"). Drummond h a d p o s s e s s i o n when Products t o Drummond and s i m i l a r l i c e n s e , U n i t e d a g r e e d , among o t h e r [ w e l d e r s ] i n good w o r k i n g At action, the time a Limited companies. supplies Under t h e things, t o "maintain the order." of the accident coworker was o f t h e w e l d e r b y means o f a l i c e n s e b e t w e e n CPL a n d U n i t e d , t h r o u g h w h i c h U n i t e d such welders he made of Wilbanks's was the basis using of the welder this to r e p a i r a coke o v e n . The w e l d e r i n c o r p o r a t e s a s t a i n l e s s - s t e e l lance approximately 11 f e e t l o n g . A t one e n d o f t h e l a n c e i s a nozzle, which the operator brings the The o t h e r surface t o be r e p a i r e d . 2 into close contact with end o f t h e l a n c e i s 1111164 attached t o a "mixing i n t o the lance chamber," w h i c h m i x e s (1) o x y g e n a n d (2) " c e r a m i c and i n t r o d u c e s powder" p u s h e d b y c o m p r e s s e d a i r . Oxygen i s f e d i n t o t h e m i x i n g chamber an oxygen v a l v e which, i n turn, ("the v a l v e " ) , i s attached which i s attached to a large oxygen through t o a hose, tank. The powder i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e m i x i n g chamber b y c o m p r e s s e d a i r through a powder h o s e , w h i c h i s a t t a c h e d a t i t s o t h e r e n d t o a machine t h a t s e r v e s as t h e p o w d e r - s u p p l y s o u r c e . occurs point at the repair when t h e m i x t u r e Ignition o f powder a n d oxygen e x i t t h e n o z z l e . On t h e d a y o f t h e a c c i d e n t , W i l b a n k s was a member o f a three-person a coke oven. welding team e n g a g e d i n t h e p r o c e s s of r e p a i r i n g One o f t h e team members, who was s t a n d i n g on a s c a f f o l d as he h e l d t h e l a n c e , h a n d e d t h e l a n c e t o W i l b a n k s , who was a t ground level, with i n s u f f i c i e n t powder c o m i n g t h r o u g h trained and t o do, W i l b a n k s attached apparent then paraphernalia t h e remark the lance. that there was As he h a d b e e n u n d e r t o o k t o examine t h e l a n c e t o determine the source of the blockage. Having first observed t h a t t h e v a l v e was t u r n e d i n the " o f f " p o s i t i o n , W i l b a n k s c o o l e d down t h e l a n c e b y s p r a y i n g i t 3 1111164 with water. and He t h e n removed t h e l a n c e f r o m t h e m i x i n g examined the obstruction. lance However, as hose from the m i x i n g the and determined he that i t was clear a t t e m p t e d t o remove t h e chamber, an e x p l o s i o n o c c u r r e d , l o s s o f h i s l e f t h a n d and chamber of powder causing burns to other p o r t i o n s of h i s body. On F e b r u a r y 5, 2010, alleged that "fail[ure]" Wilbanks of "the Wilbanks sued U n i t e d . was injured subject as equipment" the and The complaint result the United that of had " n e g l i g e n t l y and/or wantonly f a i l [ e d ] t o p r o p e r l y i n s p e c t maintain the subject equipment and i t s component U n i t e d moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , c o n t e n d i n g , things, t h a t t h e r e was no g e n u i n e i s s u e as substantial injuries The trial e v i d e n c e o f any and causal the a l l e g e d negligence to causation presenting r e l a t i o n s h i p between h i s or wantonness of e v i d e n c e o f c a u s a t i o n , and W i l b a n k s a p p e a l e d . The dispositive causation i s whether sufficient motion, United. absence appeal the and the on granted other citing issue court parts." among t h a t W i l b a n k s had f a i l e d t o c r e a t e s u c h an i s s u e by and Wilbanks to withstand motion. 4 presented United's evidence of of summary-judgment 1111164 II. Discussion "'Summary j u d g m e n t i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y when " t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t the moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " ' P e r r y v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m ^ 906 So. 2d 174, 175 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g A l a . R. C i v . P. 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , and c i t i n g Dobbs v. S h e l b y C o u n t y E c o n . & I n d u s . Dev. A u t h . , 749 So. 2d 425 (Ala. 1999)). 'The c o u r t must a c c e p t t h e t e n d e n c i e s of t h e e v i d e n c e most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e f a c t u a l d o u b t s i n f a v o r of the nonmoving p a r t y In r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , de novo^ a p p l i e s t h e same s t a n d a r d as t h e t r i a l court.' P e r r y , 906 So. 2d a t 175." a n d Clay K i l g o r e Constr., 2d 893, 896 "The for the I n c . v. B u c h a l t e r / G r a n t , So. is ordinarily one ( A l a . 2006). question jury, of proximate i f reasonable support the p l a i n t i f f ' s 624 2d 1346, So. L.L.C., 949 1349 causation inferences theory." from the evidence G a r n e r v. C o v i n g t o n ( A l a . 1993) . Cnty., However, t h e q u e s t i o n "may be d e c i d e d by a summary j u d g m e n t i f ' " t h e r e i s a t o t a l l a c k o f evidence direct from which causal the r e l a t i o n between the resulting injury."'" 232, So. 240 2d Mobile fact-finder may reasonably culpable infer c o n d u c t and Gooden v. C i t y o f T a l l a d e g a , 966 So. ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g G r e e n v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 1325, 1328 ( A l a . 1992), I n f i r m a r y , 456 So. 2d 14, 5 quoting 24 (Ala. i n turn 1984)). Davison a the 2d 597 v. 1111164 "'When t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e b u r d e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence creating such issue.'" S y s . , LLC, 2d 842, Iron Pipe 844 P i t t m a n v. U n i t e d T o l l ( A l a . 2003) Co., 690 So. (quoting 2d 341, 882 Hobson v. A m e r i c a n 344 So. Cast (Ala. 1997)). "'"Substantial e v i d e n c e " i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t minded persons i n the reasonably infer proved."'" Long (quoting v. exercise of impartial existence the of the Wade, Kmart C o r p . v. 980 So. Bassett, 2d 769 sought 383 2d fair- judgment fact 378, So. an can to be ( A l a . 2007) 282, 284 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. Florida, 547 So. "'"[e]vidence conjecture, 2d 870, supporting or a Grove Baptist Church, (Ala. nothing guess substantial evidence."'" 871 does not more rise 1989)). than to However, speculation, the level 838 So. 2d 1039, 1041 ( A l a . 2002) So. 2d ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B r u s h w i t z v. E z e l l , 2d 423, 432 of S t a t e Farm F i r e & Cas. Co. v. Shady ( q u o t i n g M c G i n n i s v. J i m W a l t e r Homes, I n c . , 800 145 of (Ala. 2000)). 6 757 140, So. 1111164 W i l b a n k s ' s t h e o r y o f t h e c a u s e o f t h e a c c i d e n t c e n t e r s on the v a l v e . He p o s i t s t h a t t h e e x p l o s i o n o c c u r r e d o f an o x y g e n l e a k a t t h e v a l v e , w h i c h a l l o w e d into the mixing chamber as he was a t t e m p t i n g powder h o s e f r o m t h e chamber. as a r e s u l t o x y g e n t o seep t o remove t h e More s p e c i f i c a l l y , he p r o p o s e s t h a t s t a t i c e l e c t r i c i t y combined w i t h l e a k i n g oxygen t o c r e a t e the e x p l o s i o n . According t o Wilbanks's theory, t h e v a l v e was leaking, either (1) b e c a u s e t h e v a l v e h a d become e x c e s s i v e l y worn t h r o u g h u s e , o r (2) b e c a u s e some " d e b r i s " h a d e n t e r e d t h e valve t h r o u g h t h e oxygen s u p p l y , of t h e v a l v e . to United's preventing complete A l t h o u g h he a t t r i b u t e s b o t h o f t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a l l e g e d " f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y i n s p e c t and m a i n t a i n " t h e v a l v e , W i l b a n k s t e s t i f i e d b y d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he even b e g i n In testimony closure to speculate that from what c a u s e d connection, Wilbanks one o f U n i t e d ' s "couldn't [the a c c i d e n t ] . " presented deposition representatives, who opined t h a t , under t h e l i c e n s e p u r s u a n t t o which U n i t e d s u p p l i e d t h e w e l d e r t o Drummond, and i t s component United parts than had a d u t y t o examine t h e w e l d e r a t Drummond's minimum, at less annual quarterly under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . 7 intervals coke plant, and perhaps Wilbanks also at a even produced 1111164 some e v i d e n c e indicating that coke p l a n t t o e x a m i n e t h e United had never visited welder. However, W i l b a n k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v a l v e was changed and personnel replaced and could the with a new have b e e n oxygen replaced valve as routinely by often Drummond as weekly. M o r e o v e r , t h e r e p l a c e m e n t s o c c u r r e d , he t e s t i f i e d , n o t b e c a u s e of malfunctions, such as those that allegedly caused a c c i d e n t , but because of l o o s e or m i s s i n g handles. no e v i d e n c e as t o how how long a valve e x c e s s i v e l y worn as debris. Thus, inspection preceding of the A l s o , t h e r e was would typically a l l e g e d or b e f o r e there the There was valve accident no by last before indicating within the w o u l d have p r e v e n t e d more t h a n s p e c u l a t i o n , c o n j e c t u r e , o r a g u e s s " and "the level of substantial p r o p e r l y supported & Cas. Co., 838 So. evidence" 1041. 8 an months explosion. "nothing fell short n e e d e d t o overcome summary-judgment m o t i o n . 2d a t with that three the as becoming becoming clogged evidence United no e v i d e n c e The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by W i l b a n k s r a i s e d , t h e r e f o r e , of was l o n g t h e s u b j e c t v a l v e had b e e n i n p l a c e at the time of the a c c i d e n t . to this S t a t e Farm a Fire 1111164 III. In of any Conclusion summary, b e c a u s e W i l b a n k s causal relationship failed between his to produce injuries evidence and any a l l e g e d a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f U n i t e d , U n i t e d ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n was is, due t o be g r a n t e d . The j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d f o r U n i t e d therefore, affirmed. AFFIRMED. Malone, C.J., and B o l i n , M u r d o c k , and M a i n , 9 J J . , concur.
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.
