It is the intent of the Legislature that a comprehensive system consisting of the time for commencement of actions, for discoverability of actions based upon insidious disease and the repose of actions shall be instituted in this state. The Legislature finds that in order to assure the rights of all persons, and to provide for the fair, orderly, and efficient administration of product liability actions in the courts of this state, a complete and unified approach to the time in which product liability actions may be brought and maintained is required. The Legislature finds that product liability actions and litigation have increased substantially, and the cost of such litigation has risen in recent years. The Legislature further finds that these increases are having an impact upon consumer prices, and upon the availability, cost, and use of product liability insurance, thus, affecting the availability of compensation for injured consumers. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to provide a comprehensive time framework for the commencement and maintenance of all product liability actions brought in this state.
(Acts 1979, No. 79-468, p. 855, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So. 2d 291 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 7× “Acts 1979 (codified at Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-5-500 through -504). Section 6-5-502 provided a discovery rule for actions seeking damages for injuries resulting from exposure to toxic substances.”
Cline v. Ashland, Inc., 970 So. 2d 755 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 9× “Acts 1979 (codified at Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-5-500 through -504). Section 6-5-502 provided a discovery rule for actions seeking damages for injuries resulting from exposure to toxic substances.”
Lankford v. Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, 416 So. 2d 996 (Ala. 1982).
· cites it 3× “At issue is the constitutionality of Code 1975, § 6-5-500 et seq. This appeal is from the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants/appellees.”
Tidwell v. Upjohn Co., 626 So. 2d 1297 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-500 et seq. While expert testimony of a physician is required in a medical malpractice case in order to determine the proper medical standard of care, Levesque v.”
Cunningham v. Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc., 253 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2001).
“PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Cunninghams filed a complaint in Alabama circuit court alleging fraud, mental anguish and emotional distress, fraud in the inducement, negligence and wantonness, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of implied warranty of…”
Henderson v. MeadWestvaco Corp., 23 So. 3d 625 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Asbestos injury, like radiation injury, results from a latent, insidious agent and, prior to the passage of Act No. 80-566 [an amendment to § 6-2-30 that applied a discovery rule to the accrual of causes of action arising from exposure to asbestos] and Act No.”
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Indies House, Inc., 602 So. 2d 380 (Ala. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Count I of the complaint stated a negligence cause of action; Count II stated a cause of action that fell under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD"), Ala.”
Ridling v. Armstrong World, 627 F. Supp. 1057 (S.D. Ala. 1986).
· cites it 4× “2d 996 (Ala.1982) held § 6-5-502(c) of the Alabama Products Liability Act to be unconstitutional.”
Nall v. Reinhardt Motors, Inc., 623 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Nall sued Reinhardt on a theory of negligent inspection and on theories of product liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (“AEMLD”), Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-500 et seq. These claims are related to an alleged failure of the driver’s seat belt in…”
Archer v. Mead Corp., 998 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (N.D. Ala. 2014).
“79-468, Alabama Acts of 1979 [adding § 6-5-500 et seq., Ala.Code 1975], following Raytheon , a claim based on asbestos injury would have accrued on the last date of plaintiffs exposure to defendant’s product.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.