Court Opinion

ID: 9694093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:22:26.806878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:56.090992
License: Public Domain

BLOODWORTH, Justice
(dissenting).
This is a close case in my judgment. Justice Shores’ opinion for the majority is well written and persuasive. Nevertheless, I have concluded that Act 788, as construed by our holding in Bagby Elevator and Electric Co., Inc. v. McBride, 292 Ala. 191, 291 So.2d 306 (1974), now provides that such actions must be commenced within four (4) years after the final completion of the improvements, unless the cause of action is not discovered and could not reasonably have been discovered within such period, when an additional six (6) months is allowed. It is my view that the Act now constitutes an “open end” statute with no period of limitation of years within which to bring the action under the exception, ex*162cept the six (6) months after discovery of the cause of action, etc.
Due to the fact that plaintiff, in the instant case, did not bring her action within the six (6) months’ period, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment holding her action to be barred,
I would reserve my judgment as to whether the same reasoning, which impels the majority to reach their conclusions with respect to Act 788, also applies to the “Medical Malpractice Act.”
I see no need to answer the various theoretical situations which might arise under the statute as we are here confronted only with the factual context in which this case did arise.
I consider the Act to be workable and not inoperative and void for vagueness as the majority holds. It is therefore that I dissent.