DISA Industries, Inc. v. Bell, [Ms. 1160339, June 29, 2018] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2018). This decision reverses a $500,000 compensatory judgment entered on a jury verdict against DISA Industries, Inc. (“DISA”) for injuries suffered by plaintiff Bell while working as an employee of Union Foundry.
Union Foundry purchased a new molding line system from DISA which DISA installed at the foundry. Ms. *4. Bell was injured when he stepped over a trough containing molten metal and his boot dipped into the trough. Ms. *11.
The Court reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Bell as it agreed with DISA that DISA did not sell, manufacture, or design the modified trough and work platform where Bell was injured. Ms. *13. The Court concluded that a contract provision referencing design and construction solely related to the molding line that DISA sold and installed at the foundry and did not relate to the modified trough. Ms. *14.
The Court pointed out that plaintiff’s expert “testified that DISA was not the actual designer or manufacturer of the modified trough.” Ms. *18. The Court concluded “it is clear that the AEMLD is not applicable, because DISA was not a manufacturer, designer, or seller of the modified trough.” Ms. *22. The Court likewise found that DISA was not liable under a negligence theory because “there was no evidence presented at trial indicating that the scope of DISA’s contractual duties extended beyond the molding line to the furnace system, which includes the modified trough [where the plaintiff was injured].” Ms. *27.