Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1992 |
| Citation | 596 So.2d 888 |
| Parties | William A. HILLIS, v. RENTOKIL, INC. and Larry Landman. 1900992. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
This Court's opinion issued October 11, 1991, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor:
William A. Hillis filed an eight-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Madison County against Rentokil, Inc., Larry Landman, and various fictitious parties. Hillis sought damages from the defendants on claims based on breach of warranty, negligence, wantonness, fraud, co-employee liability, failure to warn, and liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, all concerning an injury he says he suffered as a result of exposure to chromated copper arsenate ("CCA"). Rentokil, Inc., and Landman raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.
On January 10, 1991, the trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that each claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Hillis appealed. We reverse.
Hillis began working for L & L Lumber Company in September 1985. While working there, he was exposed to CCA. Rentokil is the manufacturer of CCA. Landman is an employee, or owner and operator, of L & L Lumber Company. Hillis stated that he was never given any type of protective clothing, goggles, or respiration devices to prevent or minimize his exposure to CCA. According to Hillis, he lost his voice in July 1986. Hillis stated that he did not know at the time what had caused the loss of his voice, but he later associated it with the exposure to CCA. Hillis testified that he was treated by a Dr. Carl A. Grote for this condition and that it cleared up sometime after that treatment. Hillis further testified that in August 1987 red spots began to appear on his skin. He stated that this condition progressed and that on September 25, 1987 he was again treated by Dr. Grote. At that time, Dr. Grote diagnosed what appeared to be a "contact dermatitis, the etiology of which is unclear." According to Dr. Grote, Hillis felt that it was caused by certain wood products. The doctor stated, "However, there is no way for me to tell at the present time until we see a greater spectrum of the problem." Finally, Dr. Grote advised Hillis to see a dermatologist because of an allergic reaction to the CCA. Hillis continued to work for L & L Lumber Company until December 31, 1987, the date he was terminated.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in holding that the statutory period of limitations had run on each of Hillis's claims.
In regard to his tort claims, Hillis argues that the injury he suffered was a continuous injury and, therefore, that the statutory period of limitations did not begin to run until December 31, 1987, the date he was terminated from his job. Rentokil argues that the limitations period began to run, at the latest, on September 25, 1987, because Hillis was aware of his injury on that date.
This Court has used the term "continuous tort" to describe repeated tortious conduct that has repeatedly and continuously injured a plaintiff. Moon v. Harco Drugs, Inc., 435 So.2d 218, 220 (Ala.1983). According to Moon, a continuous tort occurs in one of three situations: (1) "when an employer exposes its employee on a continuing basis to harmful substances and conditions"; (2) "when there is a 'single sustained method pursued in executing one general scheme' "; and (3) when a person contaminates a well or stream. Moon, 435 So.2d at 220-21.
In the instant case, Hillis began working for L & L Lumber Company in September 1985. While working there, he was exposed to CCA, he alleges, on a continuous basis. This factual allegation, if proven, satisfies the Moon definition of a "continuous tort," because Hillis alleges that the employer exposed him on a continuing basis to harmful substances and conditions. The statute of limitations for a lawsuit based on a continuous tort is two years. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-2-38(g).
According to Garrett v. Raytheon Co., 368 So.2d 516 (Ala.1979), and American Mutual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cline v. Ashland, Inc.
...radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run ...."); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations begins to run from the "date of injury"); Hubbard v. Lib......
-
Griffin v. Unocal Corp.
...radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run....'); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations begins to run from the `date of injury'); Hubbard v. Libe......
-
Becton v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.
...exposed to the hazardous substance causing the injuries. Hubbard v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 599 So.2d 20 (Ala.1992); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888 (Ala.1992); American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., v. Phillips, 491 So.2d 904 (Ala.1986); Garrett v. Raytheon Co., 368 So.2d 516 (Ala.19......
-
Jerkins v. Lincoln Elec. Co.
...which occurred within the period of limitations,” 368 So.2d at 521, even before Griffin was decided, most notably in Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888 (Ala.1992). In Hillis, a lumber-company employee alleged that he had been injured as a result of prolonged exposure to chromated coppe......