Sec. Fire & Cos. Co. v. Vintson, 454 So.2d 942, 946 (Ala.1984); South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. Branum, 568 So.2d 795, 798-99 (Ala.1990). 3 . Even so, in Sterchi Bros. Stores, this Court recognized that this rule is subject to certain exceptions. For example, "one who delivers an article ... that may become dangerous without repair and which work he contracted to do, ... is liable for the injury reasonably to be contemplated, and that is likely to result in its use, and which does, in fact, result from such negligent failure ... to any other who is not himself at fault." 236 Ala. at 352, 182 So. at 477. 4 . Neither party argues that a mobile home is not a product, and we express no opinion on that issue. But see Foremost Ins. Co. v. Indies House, Inc., 602 So.2d 380, 382 (Ala.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Bell v. T.R. Miller Mill Co., 768
holding that an assembler of a mobile home is deemed to be a manufacturer of a finished product that is the mobile home for purposes of determining the applicability of the affirmative causalrelation defense under the aemld holding that despite moving mobile homes onto the property a mobile home park was not in operation since regulations required permits to operate such a park and the property owner had not applied for such permits holding that the antimodification provision of 11 usc  1322b is applicable to a mobile home irrespective of whether the home is attached to the real property on which it sits holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment holding that prohibition of any kind of mobile home included doublewide manufactured home which was finished out with foundation skirt and added porches by concluding difference in nomenclature did not alter intention of framers of restrictive covenants saying that it is bigger better and more expensive than the great majority of the mobile homes of 1967 does not alter its character