Alabama Appellate Watch : Blog Published by Lightfoot Franklin & White : Alabama Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Appellate, Alabama Supreme Court (Supreme Court of Alabama)

In IRMCO, former employees sued Arvin, their former employer, along with a number of their co-employees, alleging that they had suffered injuries as a result of their exposure to toxic chemicals they used while employed at Arvin.  The trial court dismissed the employees' claims, finding that the applicable statutory period was the two-year period applicable to product liability actions and that the former employees had failed to assert their claims within that time period.    

The issue for the Alabama Supreme Court was whether the wantonness claims were governed by 6-2-34(l), which provides in relevant part that actions "for any trespass to person or liberty, such as false imprisonment or assaut and battery" must be commenced within six years."  The defendants argued that the claims were based on a product liability theory and therefore subject to the two-year limitations period found in 6-2-38(l).  That section provides "all actions for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising from contract and not specifically enumerated in this section must be brought within two years."  

In determining that the six-year limitations period applied, the court noted that it has adopted an "intent-based analysis to determine whether the six-year statute of limitations applies to a wantonness claim: Wanton conduct is the equivalent in law to intentional conduct.  Such an allegation of intent renders the six-year statutory period of limitations applicable." In the case before it, the former employees alleged that the new defendants engaged in wanton conduct in manufacturing and selling toxic chemical products and the equipment used in its manufacturing processes and that this wanton conduct resulted in injury to them.  Accordingly, their claims were subject to the six-year limitations period of 6-2-34(l).