## Facts

- Daniel A. Middleton, Jr., a maintenance mechanic for Ryan‑Walsh, Inc. (later SSA) in Charleston, South Carolina, was injured on December 21, 2000, while working on a Caterpillar Model T50D industrial lift truck.
- Middleton raised the lift truck mast and carriage approximately 11–13 feet, left the truck running, and stood under the elevated mast/carriage without supporting it while troubleshooting a hydraulic leak.
- A loss of hydraulic pressure caused the mast and carriage to fall, crushing Middleton’s right arm; the injury required surgical amputation.
- Before the injury, Middleton filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition (Sept. 28, 2000) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina and did not amend his schedules after the injury to disclose any potential tort claim.
- The bankruptcy court confirmed Middleton’s Chapter 13 plan (Mar. 1, 2001) and later dismissed the proceeding (June 8, 2001) for noncompliance with court orders.
- Middleton filed a second Chapter 13 petition (June 28, 2001) and again did not list any potential claim arising from the injury.
- Middleton later filed an Alabama products-liability/personal-injury action against Caterpillar Industrial, Inc. (and others who were dismissed), and he did not disclose his bankruptcy proceedings in responses to Caterpillar’s interrogatories.

## Issues

1. Whether Alabama or South Carolina law governs judicial estoppel in an Alabama tort action when the injury and bankruptcy proceedings occurred in South Carolina.
2. Whether Middleton was judicially estopped from pursuing his tort claim because he failed to disclose it as an asset in Chapter 13 bankruptcy schedules.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on judicial-estoppel grounds given evidence that the nondisclosure was inadvertent rather than intended to mislead.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the summary judgment entered for Caterpillar and remanded.
- The Court held the record did not justify barring the claim by judicial estoppel as a matter of law.
- The Court concluded Caterpillar failed to establish the elements necessary for judicial estoppel on summary judgment, particularly in light of Middleton’s explanation of inadvertence and the circumstances of the bankruptcy proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine aimed at protecting the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a party from taking inconsistent positions in separate proceedings.
- In applying judicial estoppel, courts consider whether the inconsistent position reflects intentional manipulation or an attempt to mislead a court; inadvertent or mistaken nondisclosure may preclude estoppel as a matter of law.
- Summary judgment on judicial estoppel requires a showing that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the elements supporting estoppel.
- Choice-of-law analysis in tort matters generally follows lex loci delicti for substantive issues, while forum law governs procedural matters; characterization of judicial estoppel requires attention to its function and context.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that judicial estoppel did not warrant summary judgment against Middleton on the existing record, reversing and remanding for further proceedings because Caterpillar had not conclusively shown that Middleton’s bankruptcy nondisclosure required barring the tort claim as a matter of law.


Middleton v. Caterpillar Indus., Inc., 979 So. 2d 53 (Ala. 2007)