![]() ![]() Failure of a bus driver to comply with this requirement shall be prima facie evidence of nonfeasance of duty, and any driver who fails to comply with this requirement shall be subject to dismissal. "(b) The driver of a school bus while transporting pupils on a public street or highway or elsewhere shall wear a properly fastened seat belt when the bus is in motion. ![]() "(a) No school bus shall be operated on a public street, highway or elsewhere unless it shall be equipped with a seat belt for the driver. The provisions of Code 1975, § 16-27-6, are particularly pertinent: *943 As we have already pointed out, we believe that in order to address the issue here on appeal, we must necessarily consider the fact that the legislature has taken affirmative action to govern and regulate the transportation of school children in Chapter 27 of Title 16, Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-27-1, et seq. The trial court granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs' lawsuit. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint: (1) that defendants breached the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD") by manufacturing and selling an unreasonably dangerous school bus, and (2) that defendants breached an implied or express warranty of merchantability by manufacturing and selling a defective school bus.ĭefendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds, inter alia, that plaintiffs had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under either the AEMLD or the theory of breach of implied or express warranty. Plaintiffs sued, inter alia, Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc., the school bus dealer, and Blue Bird Body Company, Inc., the school bus manufacturer. On October 12, 1984, plaintiffs, public school children, were injured in Lee County when the school bus in which they were passengers collided with another vehicle. The specific issue is: Should the manufacturer of a bus used for "transportation of pupils" as provided for in Code 1975, § 16-27-1, et seq., install passenger seat belts in the vehicle? Because of the nature of the particular facts of this case, and the fact that the legislature has enacted legislation "o promote safe transportation of pupils to and from schools and in school related activities," we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action, and that the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed. This is a products liability/breach of warranty case, and is a case of first impression. Broughton of Ball, Ball, Duke & Matthews, Montgomery, for appellee Blue Bird Body Company, Inc. ![]() Travers of Gallion, Gallion & Wilkerson, Montgomery, for appellees Eddins & Lee Bus Sales, Inc. Gray of Gray, Langford, Sapp, Davis & McGowan, Tuskegee, for appellants. Raymon of Raymon, Nathanson & Raymon, Fred D. Segall of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, Montgomery, Edward B. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |