Jerkins v. Lincoln Electric Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama answered three certified questions concerning claims arising from long-term exposure to welding fumes. Applying pre-Griffin Alabama law, the court held that recovery is limited to injuries occurring within the applicable limitations period, that a six-year limitations period applies to wantonness claims filed before Ex parte Capstone was released, and that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the timely injuries and resulting damages.

Holdings

1. Under pre-Griffin Alabama law, a plaintiff injured by long-term, continuous exposure to a toxic substance may recover only damages attributable to injuries that occurred within the applicable limitations period.
2. A six-year limitations period applies to wantonness claims filed before Ex parte Capstone Building Corp. was released, because Ex parte Capstone's rejection of the six-year period was prospective and did not immediately cut off vested claims.
3. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving which injuries occurred within the applicable limitations period and the amount of damages attributable to those injuries.

Questions Presented

1. Under Alabama law applicable before Griffin v. Unocal Corp., is a plaintiff injured by long-term, continuous exposure to a toxic substance limited to recovering damages attributable only to injuries occurring within the applicable limitations period?
2. How does the limitations rule announced in McKenzie v. Killian apply to wantonness claims, particularly after Ex parte Capstone Building Corp. overruled McKenzie?
3. When recovery is limited to injuries occurring within the limitations period, does the plaintiff or defendant bear the burden of proving which injuries and damages are timely?

Disposition

other