BRENDAN KIRBY
Staff Reporter
A lawyer whose Alabama client was barred from suing the manufacturers of a chemical he blamed for causing his rare form of leukemia urged the U.S. Supreme Court this week to reverse a "manifest injustice."
Jack Cline, who lived in Vance between Tuscaloosa and Birmingham before his death in January, worked with benzene at his job with a company that made railroad wheels.
He tried to sue three companies that produced the benzene, which he believed caused his disease. But a judge ruled in favor of the defendants -- which the state Supreme Court upheld in January -- on grounds that Cline waited too long to sue.
The ruling was based on a 1979 precedent holding that the two-year statute of limitations in such cases begins on the date of a person's last exposure to a toxic substance.
But a separate precedent in Alabama allows lawsuits only by people who have suffered demonstrable harm, or what the court calls "manifest injury." Taken together, Cline's lawyers argue, the precedents mean that there was never a time their client could have sued.
They say it's a problem that may ensnare thousands of people whose symptoms come to light long after their exposure. Cline, for example, retired in 1995 after 37 years and was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in 1999. He filed the suit in 2001, within two years of his diagnosis but long after his last exposure to benzene.
Cline's case, which his widow has taken up, has drawn support from a Washington-based public interest law firm that specializes in consumer protection and U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Leslie Brueckner, a lawyer with the firm, said she offered her assistance after learning of Cline's story from The New York Times.
The Supreme Court is a longshot for most litigants, but it represents Jane Cline's last hope, her attorneys said. The justices hear only about 1 percent of the cases presented to them each year.
Still, Brueckner said she believes the facts of the case are compelling enough that there is a good chance the justices will take the case. "This case might meet every criteria imaginable," she said. "I am as confident as I have ever been."
Lawyers for the defendants, Ashland Inc., Chevron Phillips Chemical and ExxonMobil Corp., will have 30 days to respond in writing to the plaintiff's petition to the high court. Mobile lawyer George Walker, who represents the companies, said he did not want to comment in detail on the legal arguments until filing the brief.
"Certainly we're going to file a response," he said. "We do not think there is a substantial federal issue, or any federal issue."
Fight of 'due process'
The plaintiff's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court argues that Alabama has violated the 14th Amendment by denying Cline "due process of law." The brief cites a lengthy list of cases, some dating back more than a century, in which the justices affirmed the right of people to have their day in court.
"You can't have a cause of action and then never have an opportunity to file it," said Robert Palmer, a Birmingham lawyer who has represented Cline from the beginning.
In addition, the lawyers argue, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision conflicts with other state high courts and with U.S. courts of appeal. Various federal appeals courts have issued decisions on the topic of statute of limitations that contradict Alabama's position and that conflict with one another -- another factor that the U.S. Supreme Court looks for when deciding which cases to take.
While other states have struggled with the disputes over statutes of limitations, the brief argues, no other state has interpreted the issue the way that Alabama has.
"In this respect, Alabama is entirely unique," the brief states. "Alabama is the only state in this country in which a toxic tort personal injury claim is deemed to have accrued, for the purposes of the statute of limitations, before there is a manifest present injury."
As Brueckner put it, "This case is far more outrageous than these other cases."
In their January opinion affirming the dismissal of Cline's lawsuit, five state Supreme Court justices wrote that the statute of limitations question was one for the Legislature to decide.
Lawmakers did change those rules in 1980 -- in response to a landmark court ruling the previous year -- but only pertaining to asbestos. Since then, lawmakers have failed to act on proposals to apply the rules to all toxins.
The brief asking the Supreme Court to take up the case calls the Alabama interpretation of the statute of limitations a "manifest injustice" that the state's courts and Legislature have been unwilling to address.
"Clearly, the buck is being passed in the state of Alabama, and the price is ultimately being paid by victims like Jack Cline, who are being deprived of their right to seek any redress for their injuries," the brief states.
Jane Cline has said she believes that the court battle was what sustained her husband through the leukemia. He died at age 67, days after learning the state Supreme Court had upheld the dismissal of his case.
After the defense responds to the new filing, Cline's lawyers will have an opportunity to reply. Then, it will be up to the justices on the nation's highest court to decide if they will accept the case. It requires at least four justices to agree to hear a case.
Brueckner said she expects the court to decide the question by summer. If they pass on the case, Jane Cline will have reached the end of the line. If they take it, Brueckner said, oral arguments could be scheduled by fall or winter.
Sphere: Related Content
Jack Cline, who lived in Vance between Tuscaloosa and Birmingham before his death in January, worked with benzene at his job with a company that made railroad wheels.
He tried to sue three companies that produced the benzene, which he believed caused his disease. But a judge ruled in favor of the defendants -- which the state Supreme Court upheld in January -- on grounds that Cline waited too long to sue.
The ruling was based on a 1979 precedent holding that the two-year statute of limitations in such cases begins on the date of a person's last exposure to a toxic substance.
But a separate precedent in Alabama allows lawsuits only by people who have suffered demonstrable harm, or what the court calls "manifest injury." Taken together, Cline's lawyers argue, the precedents mean that there was never a time their client could have sued.
They say it's a problem that may ensnare thousands of people whose symptoms come to light long after their exposure. Cline, for example, retired in 1995 after 37 years and was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in 1999. He filed the suit in 2001, within two years of his diagnosis but long after his last exposure to benzene.
Cline's case, which his widow has taken up, has drawn support from a Washington-based public interest law firm that specializes in consumer protection and U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Leslie Brueckner, a lawyer with the firm, said she offered her assistance after learning of Cline's story from The New York Times.
The Supreme Court is a longshot for most litigants, but it represents Jane Cline's last hope, her attorneys said. The justices hear only about 1 percent of the cases presented to them each year.
Still, Brueckner said she believes the facts of the case are compelling enough that there is a good chance the justices will take the case. "This case might meet every criteria imaginable," she said. "I am as confident as I have ever been."
Lawyers for the defendants, Ashland Inc., Chevron Phillips Chemical and ExxonMobil Corp., will have 30 days to respond in writing to the plaintiff's petition to the high court. Mobile lawyer George Walker, who represents the companies, said he did not want to comment in detail on the legal arguments until filing the brief.
"Certainly we're going to file a response," he said. "We do not think there is a substantial federal issue, or any federal issue."
Fight of 'due process'
The plaintiff's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court argues that Alabama has violated the 14th Amendment by denying Cline "due process of law." The brief cites a lengthy list of cases, some dating back more than a century, in which the justices affirmed the right of people to have their day in court.
"You can't have a cause of action and then never have an opportunity to file it," said Robert Palmer, a Birmingham lawyer who has represented Cline from the beginning.
In addition, the lawyers argue, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision conflicts with other state high courts and with U.S. courts of appeal. Various federal appeals courts have issued decisions on the topic of statute of limitations that contradict Alabama's position and that conflict with one another -- another factor that the U.S. Supreme Court looks for when deciding which cases to take.
While other states have struggled with the disputes over statutes of limitations, the brief argues, no other state has interpreted the issue the way that Alabama has.
"In this respect, Alabama is entirely unique," the brief states. "Alabama is the only state in this country in which a toxic tort personal injury claim is deemed to have accrued, for the purposes of the statute of limitations, before there is a manifest present injury."
As Brueckner put it, "This case is far more outrageous than these other cases."
In their January opinion affirming the dismissal of Cline's lawsuit, five state Supreme Court justices wrote that the statute of limitations question was one for the Legislature to decide.
Lawmakers did change those rules in 1980 -- in response to a landmark court ruling the previous year -- but only pertaining to asbestos. Since then, lawmakers have failed to act on proposals to apply the rules to all toxins.
The brief asking the Supreme Court to take up the case calls the Alabama interpretation of the statute of limitations a "manifest injustice" that the state's courts and Legislature have been unwilling to address.
"Clearly, the buck is being passed in the state of Alabama, and the price is ultimately being paid by victims like Jack Cline, who are being deprived of their right to seek any redress for their injuries," the brief states.
Jane Cline has said she believes that the court battle was what sustained her husband through the leukemia. He died at age 67, days after learning the state Supreme Court had upheld the dismissal of his case.
After the defense responds to the new filing, Cline's lawyers will have an opportunity to reply. Then, it will be up to the justices on the nation's highest court to decide if they will accept the case. It requires at least four justices to agree to hear a case.
Brueckner said she expects the court to decide the question by summer. If they pass on the case, Jane Cline will have reached the end of the line. If they take it, Brueckner said, oral arguments could be scheduled by fall or winter.
