Walker v. Capstone Building Corp., 96 So. 3d 77

Walker filed suit July 10, 2007, alleging negligence and wantonness against Capstone for a 2005 incident at a construction site.
Capstone argued the injury occurred June 6, 2005, making the two-year limitations period govern; discovery evidence supported this timing.
Walker contended wantonness is subject to a six-year statute of limitations under § 6-2-34(1).
Court of Civil Appeals relied on McKenzie v. Killian to apply a six-year limit to wantonness claims.
This Court overruled McKenzie, holding wantonness is governed by the two-year catchall § 6-2-38(l), and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the two-year limit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether six-year limit applies to wantonness claims	Walker: wantonness governed by § 6-2-34(1) six-year period	Capstone: McKenzie correctly applied six-year limit	Six-year limit inapplicable; two-year limit governs
Whether McKenzie should be overruled	Walker urged to preserve McKenzie’s six-year rule	Capstone urged overruling McKenzie	McKenzie overruled; wantonness governed by two-year limit
Whether the new rule should apply retroactively or prospectively	Walker relied on McKenzie; retroactive application	Capstone seeks prospective only	Rule applied prospectively with limited retroactive effect for certain preexisting claims

McKenzie v. Killian, 887 So.2d 861 (Ala. 2004) (treats wantonness as six-year trespass-type claim (overruled))
Carr v. International Refining & Mfg Co., 13 So.3d 947 (Ala. 2009) (plurality on six-year vs two-year debate; kept discussion open)
Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roush, 723 So.2d 1250 (Ala. 1998) (defines wantonness and rejects strict intent requirement)
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham, 693 So.2d 409 (Ala. 1997) (stare decisis considerations and retroactivity guidance)
Lynn Strickland Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Aero-Lane Fabricators, Inc., 510 So.2d 142 (Ala. 1987) (distinguishes wantonness from negligence; culpability focus)