Jerkins v. Lincoln Electric Co.
103 So. 3d 1
Ala.2011Background
- MDL consolidated ~1,800 welding-fumes personal injury claims; Alabama law issues identified as potentially determinative with no controlling precedent.
- MDL court certified three Alabama-law questions to the Alabama Supreme Court under Rule 18, Ala. R.App. P.
- Jerkins v. Lincoln Electric Co. was a bellwether trial involving four principal defendants and claims including Alabama extensions of liability, failure-to-warn, and sale of an unreasonably dangerous product; trial was set for July 2010.
- Pre-Griffin v. Unocal Corp. law generally applied Garrett v. Raytheon Co. last-exposure rule for continuous-tort limitations; Griffin overruled Garrett but prospective only, affecting last-exposure injuries within two years before Griffin.
- Court analyzed the continuous-tort damages rule under Garrett and related Alabama authorities (e.g., American Mutual, Phillips, Garren, Minyard) to determine damage-recovery scope for long-term exposure claims; concluded Jerkins is limited to damages for injuries occurring within the limitations period.
- The court further held that Ex parte Capstone Building Corp. overruled McKenzie v. Killian to the extent it held six-year limits for wantonness; six-year limit applies only to wantonness claims filed before Capstone, with prospective application for later cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Alabama pre-Griffin limit damages to injuries within the limitations period for long-term exposure? | Jerkins argues no external damage-time limitation. | Garrett-based rule limits damages to injuries within period. | Yes; damages limited to injuries within the limitations period. |
| How does Ex parte Capstone affect McKenzie’s six-year limit for wantonness? | Capstone should not retroactively affect existing wants. | McKenzie should apply six-year limit retroactively. | Capstone overruns McKenzie; six-year limit applies to pre-Capstone wantonness claims prospectively. |
| Who bears the burden to prove damages within the limitations period? | Jerkins should prove damages within period. | Defendants bear burden to negate time-barred damages. | Plaintiff bears burden to prove damages attributable to injuries within the period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So.2d 291 (Ala. 2008) (overruled Garrett on accrual for toxic-substance exposure, prospective application)
- Garrett v. Raytheon Co., 368 So.2d 516 (Ala. 1979) (last-exposure rule; continuous-tort limitations begin at date of injury)
- Garren v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 340 So.2d 764 (Ala. 1976) (continuing-tort limitations begin with last exposure; date of injury)
- American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Agricola Furnace Co., 236 Ala. 535, 183 So. 677 (Ala. 1938) (damages limited to those within period; continuing-tort rule)
- Phillips v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 491 So.2d 904 (Ala. 1986) (damages within period; continuing-tort context)
- McKenzie v. Killian, 887 So.2d 861 (Ala. 2004) (six-year limit for wantonness claims (overruled by Capstone))
- Ex parte Capstone Building Corp., So.3d-, (Ala. 2011) (Ala. 2011) (overruled McKenzie; clarified retroactivity boundaries)
- Cazalas v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 435 So.2d 55 (Ala. 1983) (statutory limitations context; damages may extend beyond filing period in some cases)
- Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888 (Ala. 1992) (discussion of continuous-tort limitations in pre-Griffin era)