## Facts

- Mark Lindsey worked as an automobile mechanic and used a tire-changing machine manufactured by Hennessy Industries, Inc. (Hennessy).
- The tire-changing machine was intended to remove tires from rims up to 20 inches in diameter.
- Lindsey and his coworkers experienced difficulty using the machine to remove tires from 19-inch rims.
- To address the difficulty, Lindsey inserted a tire iron along the edge of the tire to help the machine remove the tire.
- On one occasion, the tire iron slipped while Lindsey was using it with the machine.
- Lindsey almost fell over and injured his back.
- Lindsey sued Hennessy, alleging the machine was negligently designed or manufactured.
- Hennessy moved for summary judgment, arguing Lindsey misused the machine and that Lindsey failed to produce evidence the machine was defective.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Hennessy.
- Lindsey appealed, contending that whether a defect in the machine proximately caused his injury was a question for the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper when Lindsey presented a theory that a defect in the tire-changing machine caused his back injury, and Hennessy argued Lindsey’s injury resulted from misuse and lack of proof of defect and causation.
2. Whether, on this record, proximate cause was a fact question for the jury rather than a matter that could be resolved as a matter of law at summary judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment entered for Hennessy.
- The court held that, on the summary-judgment record, the causation question should not have been taken from the jury.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- In a negligence-based products claim, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the product was defective (in design or manufacture) and that the defect legally caused the plaintiff’s injury.
- Proximate cause is generally a jury question when reasonable factfinders could disagree about whether the alleged defect substantially contributed to the injury.
- Evidence that the plaintiff used a tool or employed a workaround (such as using a tire iron) does not automatically defeat causation as a matter of law; it may raise fact questions about foreseeability and the causal role of the plaintiff’s conduct.
- Summary judgment is proper only when the record allows a single reasonable conclusion and the nonmoving party lacks evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find defect and causation.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for the manufacturer because the record did not permit the court to decide, as a matter of law, that any alleged defect in the tire-changing machine was not a legal cause of Lindsey’s back injury; instead, the dispute over defect-related causation and the effect of Lindsey’s use of a tire iron presented questions for the jury on remand.


Lindsey v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc., 943 So. 2d 963 (2006)