Richards v. Robertson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Richards v. Robertson

578 So. 2d 673, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 265, 1991 WL 69470

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 22, 1991

Docket89-1450

StatusPublished

This text of 578 So. 2d 673 (Richards v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards v. Robertson, 578 So. 2d 673, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 265, 1991 WL 69470 (Ala. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

KENNEDY, Justice.

Larry Brice Richards filed a products liability action pursuant to the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine against Lennox Industries, Inc. (“Len-nox”), seeking damages for injuries he sustained in an explosion that he argued was caused by a defective valve assembly in the gas furnace in his house. His wife joined his action, seeking damages for loss of consortium resulting from his injuries. The Richardses’ attorney is Leon Garmon.

At trial, Lennox called Kenneth Robertson, Jr., to testify for it. Robertson was a former law clerk of Garmon’s, and, based on his employment with Garmon, he had knowledge concerning the valve assembly and the litigation. The jury returned a verdict for Lennox and against the Rich-ardses. We held that the matters regarding which Robertson testified were protected by the attorney-client privilege, and we reversed the trial court’s denial of the Richardses’ motion for new trial. Richards v. Lennox, Indus. Inc., 574 So.2d 736 (Ala.1990).

The Richardses then filed this action against Robertson, alleging that he had violated Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-161, and that the violation of that Code section creates a cause of action in tort for money damages. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P. Under the particular facts of this case, the trial court did not err.

The judgment is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KENNEDY, Justice.

Larry Brice Richards filed a products liability action pursuant to the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine against Lennox Industries, Inc. (“Len-nox”), seeking damages for injuries he sustained in an explosion that he argued was caused by a defective valve assembly in the gas furnace in his house. His wife joined his action, seeking damages for loss of consortium resulting from his injuries. The Richardses’ attorney is Leon Garmon.

At trial, Lennox called Kenneth Robertson, Jr., to testify for it. Robertson was a former law clerk of Garmon’s, and, based on his employment with Garmon, he had knowledge concerning the valve assembly and the litigation. The jury returned a verdict for Lennox and against the Rich-ardses. We held that the matters regarding which Robertson testified were protected by the attorney-client privilege, and we reversed the trial court’s denial of the Richardses’ motion for new trial. Richards v. Lennox, Indus. Inc., 574 So.2d 736 (Ala.1990).

The Richardses then filed this action against Robertson, alleging that he had violated Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-161, and that the violation of that Code section creates a cause of action in tort for money damages. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P. Under the particular facts of this case, the trial court did not err.

The judgment is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 673, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 265, 1991 WL 69470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-robertson-ala-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack