Jack Cline v. Ashland, Inc., et al.
Alabama Supreme Court
970 So. 2d 755 (2007)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Jack Cline (plaintiff) worked for Griffin Wheel from 1968 to 1987 and was exposed to the chemical benzene, a known carcinogen. Cline was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in 1999. Cline sued Ashland, Inc., Chevron Phillips Chemical LP, and ExxonMobil Corporation (collectively, the chemical companies) (defendants), alleging that the chemical companies produced or supplied the benzene to which Cline was exposed and that caused Cline to develop AML, and that they were liable under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine. The chemical companies filed a summary-judgment motion, arguing that Cline’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Cline argued that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until he was diagnosed with AML, and the chemical companies argued that the statute of limitations began to run when Cline was last exposed to benzene in 1987. The trial court granted the chemical companies’ motion, determining that Cline’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Cline appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Concurrence (See, J.)
Dissent (Harwood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
