In order to establish liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, the plaintiff must show that an injury was caused by one who sold a product in a defective condition that made the product unreasonably dangerous to the ultimate user or consumer; that the seller was engaged in the business of selling such a product; and that the product was expected to, and did, reach the user without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. Sapp v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 564 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 1990).
Furthermore, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to prove that the product left the defendant's control in an unreasonably dangerous condition and not fit for its expected use, and that that which caused the product to be in such an unfit condition in fact caused the injury. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haven Hills Farm, Inc., 395 So. 2d 991, 995 (Ala. 1981).
See Lemond Constr. Co. v. Wheeler, 669 So. 2d 855, 862 (Ala. 1995) (stating that it is well established that the question of proximate cause is almost always a question of fact to be determined by the jury and that the question must go to the jury if reasonable inferences from the evidence support the plaintiff's claim); Tuscaloosa County v. Barnett, 562 So. 2d 166, 169 (Ala. 1990) (holding that questions of proximate causation and intervening cause are questions for the jury); and Cain v. Sheraton Perimeter Park South Hotel, 592 So. 2d 218, 221 (Ala. 1991) (holding that the question of proximate cause is a question of fact to be determined by the jury).