![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Jack Cline and his widow were denied justice. In January 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Jack and his widow their day in court, relying on a rule that the court itself created. As an editorial in the NEW YORK TIMES described the 5-4 decision made by Chief Justice Nabers and Associate Justices See, Stuart, Smith, and Bolin, "The Alabama Supreme Court, shamefully, refused to do anything about this bizarre situation: There is never a legally acceptable time for people who are exposed to slow-acting poisons to file suit against the company or person who poisoned them." In pronouncing this judgment, the Times noted that | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Alabama's court-created rule makes Alabama the only state in which workers exposed to toxic substances are effectively precluded from suing the makers of those toxic substances for the diseases they cause years later.
The statute of limitations enacted by the Alabama Legislature gives toxic exposure victims two years within which to file a lawsuit. But the Alabama Supreme Court effectively eliminated that entire two-year period for victims of exposure to hazardous substances. The Court accomplished this by ruling that the two-year limitations period begins running when the victim is last exposed to the hazardous substance, but that the victim cannot bring a lawsuit until the cancer or other dread disease has manifested itself, which usually occurs much more than two years after exposure. With such absolution granted to polluters, is it any wonder that Alabama ranks fourth in the nation for the production of toxic wastes even though it ranks just 23rd in population among the states?
|
|
|
Notice: It is very important that you include a zip code
with your signature so that we can show each legislator that
his or her district is represented. The Alabama Legal Reform
Foundation will use the foregoing personal information solely
in its efforts to reform the statute of limitations in toxic tort cases. |
|