In a recent 5-4 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court corrected what many saw as a long-standing injustice against victims of toxic chemicals. As reported in The Birmingham News the high court overturned a legal precedent set 29 years ago in Garret v. Raytheon Co., and affirmed last year in Cline v. Ashland, that a person who is exposed to a toxic substance must file a lawsuit within two years from the date of their last exposure to the toxic material. However, individuals could not file suit unless they became sick, so if there was no injury present within that two year statute of limitations period, the claim would be forever barred.

In most cases, this time limit proved unreasonable as symptoms of injuries from exposure to toxic substances, such as benzene and asbestos, do not manifiest themselves until many years later. Until last week, Alabama had been the only state to interpret its statute of limitations in this way.

The new rule, based on Justice Harwood's dissent in the Cline case, states that "a cause of action accrues only when there has occurred a manifest, present injury." This means that an individual who becomes sick from exposure to a toxic substance will now have two years from the date of diagnosis to file a claim, no matter how much time has passed since their last exposure. However, the new rule will only apply to future cases. Alabama residents who are exposed to toxic chemicals after January 25, 2006 will be able to sue the manufacturer if they become sick in the future; the rule will not apply to individuals who were exposed before that date.

To learn more, click here.