Source: http://www.atra.org/state/alabama/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:52:12+00:00

Document:
Sets procedures to certify class actions. Codifies Supreme Court rulings to ensure that a defendant receives adequate notice prior to class certification. Provides for an immediate appeal of any order certifying a class or refusing to certify a class, and for an automatic stay of matters in the trial court pending such appeal.
Prohibits “forum shopping” of wrongful death actions by requiring that a suit can be brought only in the county where the decedent could have filed suit. This will prevent the practice of finding a personal representative in a plaintiff-favorable county solely for purposes of obtaining venue there due to the residency of the personal representative.
Establishes venue rules to restrict forum shopping. Restricts lawsuit filings against corporations to qualified venues. Specifies venue rules for class action lawsuits and actions involving multiple plaintiffs.
Judgment Interest Reform: S.B. 207 (2011); Amended Code of Ala. § 6-5-410.
Changes the rate of interest on judgments in Alabama from 12% to 7.5%. Prior to the enactment of S.B. 207, a defendant who lost a lawsuit and chose to appeal had to begin paying 12% post-judgment interest on the amount the court or jury awarded the plaintiff, creating a significant financial deterrent to appealing an unjust verdict.
Limits the award of noneconomic damages to $400,000.
The statute setting a $400,000 limit on noneconomic damages awards in health care liability actions violated the right to a jury trial and equal protection provisions of the State Constitution. Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Association, 592 So. 2d 156 (Ala. 1991).
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments. The collateral source rule reform in civil tort cases did not violate the right to trial by jury, or the due process, equal protection, access to courts, or right to a remedy provisions of the State Constitution, or the principle of separation of powers.
Marsh v. Green, 782 So. 2d 223 (Ala. 2000).
Provides that any state entity seeking to enter into a contingency fee contract must make a written determination that such representation is both cost-effective and in the public interest. This must include details about whether the state has sufficient legal and financial resources to handle the matter on its own without a contingency fee contract; the expected time and labor required, as well as the complexity and skill necessary to handle the issues; and the amount of experience desired for the particular attorney services and the nature of private attorney’s experience with similar matters. To ensure that the public interest is kept as the foremost consideration when cases are handled by private attorneys on contingency fee basis, the bill mandates that a government attorney retains complete control over the litigation. The government attorney has supervisory authority, retains veto power over any decisions by private attorneys, may be contacted directly by defendants, must attend all settlement conferences, and has exclusive discretion over settlement decisions. Contingency fees will be limited to 22 percent of the first $10 million; plus 20 percent of the next $15 million; plus 16 percent of the next $25 million; plus 12 percent of the next $25 million; plus 8 percent of the next $25 million; plus 7.1 percent of any recovery exceeding $100 million. Total fees are capped at $75 million per action. For transparency and accountability of public funds, contingency fee attorneys must keep detailed records of expenses and time spent on a case, which would be available to the state for inspection. The contingency fee contract and all payments made are to be posted on the state’s Open Alabama website.
Products Liability Reform/Innocent Seller: S.B. 184 (2011).
Known as the Alabama Small Business Protection Act, S.B. 184 adds protection for Alabama’s retailers against product liabilty suits. The suits are aimed at the manufacturers, but often the trial lawyers sue Alabama retailers, wholesalers and distributors as defendants even though they did not participate in the manufacturing or design of the product. This is done in some instances solely to allow the plaintiff to file suit in counties favorable to plaintiffs and keep an out-of-state manufacturer in an Alabama state court and out of federal court. If, on the other hand, the suit is brought against a retailer or distributor because the manufacturer is unknown and the retailer or distributor is needed in order to provide discovery concerning the manufacturer’s identity, the bill provides a mechanism to accomplish this in a reasonable manner so that the suit can then proceed against the appropriate manufacturer.
Limits the award of punitive damages in most non-physical injury cases to the greater of three times the award of compensatory damages or $500,000. Limits the award of punitive damages in non-physical injury cases against businesses with a net worth of less than $2 million to the greater of $50,000 or 10% of the business’s net worth up to $200,000. Limits the award of punitive damages in physical injury cases to the greater of three times the award of compensatory damages or $1.5 million. Prohibits application of the rule of joint and several liability in actions for punitive damages, except for wrongful death actions, actions for intentional infliction of physical injury, and class actions. Provides that the limit on punitive damages will be adjusted on January 1, 2003 and increased at three‑year intervals in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.
The Alabama Supreme Court held the $250,000 limit on punitive damages unconstitutional in Craig Henderson v. Alabama Power Co., case No. 1901875, June 25, 1993.
Adopts the Daubert standard and a later US Supreme Court decision, Joiner. Together these cases established a framework for admitting scientific expert testimony in order to preclude introduction of “junk science” into courtrooms. The federal three-part test for courts to use in determining whether to admit scientific expert testimony has been adopted in full and allows the courts to exclude unreliable testimony or even testimony that may draw from reliable procedures and principles, but whose conclusions are unsupportable. This permits the full breadth of Daubert and Joiner to now be applied in Alabama courtrooms as it is in all federal courtrooms and a majority of other states. The compromise that was reached in S.B. 187 does not adopt the Daubert progeny called Kumho, which extends these rules to non-scientific expert testimony. Also exempted were certain criminal and domestic relations cases. However, nothing precludes the courts in Alabama from later extending these rules to such testimony.
Effectively overturns the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v.
Effectively overturns the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Weeks and provides that a manufacturer is not liable, under any theory, for damages resulting from a product not designed, manufactured, sold or leased by the manufacturer. It also states that if a manufacturer’s design is copied without express authorization, the manufacturer is not subject to liability for any injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacturer’s product even if the use of the design is foreseeable.

References: § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.