Griffin v. UNOCAL: a solution to the Garrett Conundrum and the end of the last exposure rule.

INTRODUCTION

In Griffin v. UNOCAL, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled Garrett v. Raytheon (2) and its progeny. (3) Specifically, it changed the time at which the statute of limitations begins to run in a toxic-substance exposure case. Previously, the statute of limitations began on the date of last exposure. (4) Griffin adopted the reasoning from Justice Harwood's dissent in Cline v. Ashland (5) and changed the law such that the statute of limitations begins "only when there has occurred a manifest, present injury." (6)

This result is correct in that it solves what had been a puzzling situation for plaintiffs like the one in Griffin. Prior to Griffin:

 
   [a] person exposed to a toxic substance having the potential to 
   cause disease on a delayed basis, but who has suffered no manifest, 
   present injury within two years thereafter, may not file an action 
   within that two year period. If, after two years, that same person 
   in fact suffers an injury from the exposure and files an action, 
   the action will be dismissed on the basis that it should have been 
   filed earlier. Thus, no matter when the person attempts to file the 
   action, it is either too soon or too late. (7) 

However, obstacles still present difficulty in achieving a stable framework for products liability actions in toxic-substance exposure cases.

The first section of this Note discusses the legal background of the case. The second section recites the facts, the procedural posture, and the court's holding and reasoning. The third section analyzes the case and includes: (1) a discussion of whether the reasoning behind the holding was correct analyzing whether it was a proper use of judicial power; and (2) a discussion of a possible legislative response that would solidify the holding in Griffin and thus, avoid any future legal quandaries like the one left in the wake of Garrett.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION