Murray v. Manz

I believe the majority has too narrowly read the definition of “manufacturer” in Hams v. Gill, 585 So.2d 831 (Ala.1991) and their interpretation defeats the beneficent purposes of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act.

Cunningham, v. Stem, 628 So.2d 576 (Ala.1993), involved an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of two co-employees. In Cunningham, the manufacturer of the press testified that the press was sold with a selector switch by which the user could select either palm press buttons or a foot pedal device to activate the press. He also stated that the press was not sold with a foot…