Thus, the two-year limitation period for a claim for injury caused by a negligent or wanton act or omission would begin to run at the date of the first legally recognizable injury resulting proximately from the particular negligent or wanton act or omission alleged and proven. Because one of the essential elements of an AEMLD action is the sale of the product, Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995), the two-year limitation period for an AEMLD action does not begin until the date of the first legally recognizable injury caused by the specific product alleged and proven to have been the subject of an alleged and proven sale by the particular defendant. "[A] cause of action for damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods shall accrue when the injury occurs." § 7-2-725(2), Ala. Code 1975.
Under the AEMLD, a defendant will be liable “if it manufactures, designs, or sells an unreasonably dangerous product that reaches the consumer substantially unaltered and, because of its unreasonably dangerous condition, injures the consumer when it is put to its intended use.” Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995).
Stated differently, "a defendant will be liable ... if it manufactures, designs, or sells an unreasonably dangerous product that reaches the consumer substantially unaltered and, because of its unreasonably dangerous condition, injures the consumer when put to its intended use." Beam v. Tramco, Inc. , 655 So. 2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995). A product that is unreasonably dangerous is "one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer."
"To establish a prima facie case under the AEMLD, Plaintiff must show: (1) that [Defendant] manufactured, designed or sold a defective, unreasonably dangerous product; (2) that the product reached the consumer in substantially the same condition in which it was sold; and (3) that the product injured the consumer when it was put to its intended use." Browder v. Gen. Motors Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1280 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (citing Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So. 2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995)). "[A] defective product is one that is unreasonably dangerous, i.e., one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer."
See Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976). To establish a prima facie case under the AEMLD, Plaintiff must show: (1) that GM manufactured, designed or sold a defective, unreasonably dangerous product; (2) that the product reached the consumer in substantially the same condition in which it was sold; and (3) that the product injured the consumer when it was put to its intended use. Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995). "[A] defective product is one that is unreasonably dangerous, i.e., one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the parties."
Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976). To establish a prima facie case under the AEMLD, a plaintiff must show the following: (1) that the defendant manufactured, designed or sold a defective, unreasonably dangerous product; (2) that the product reached the consumer in substantially the same condition in which it was sold; and (3) that the product injured the consumer when it was put to its intended use. Beam v. Tramco. Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995). According to the Beam Court, "a defective product is one that is unreasonably dangerous, i.e., one that is not fit for its intended purpose or that does not meet the reasonable expectations of the parties."
"If the nonmovant fails to meet this burden, then a summary judgment must be entered in favor of the movant." Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 980 (Ala. 1995).
Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995).
(b) it is expected to, and did, reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.” Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995), quoting Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala.1976).
These opinions can help the jury determine whether the defendants appropriately warned of the risk of the acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure and/or designed Extra Strength Tylenol in a way that meets the reasonable expectations of a consumer.See, e.g., Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 131-34 (Ala. 1976); Atkins v. Am. Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134, 137-43 (Ala. 1976); Gurley By and Through Gurley v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 505 So.2d 358, 361 (Ala. 1987); Beam v. Tramco, Inc., 655 So.2d 979, 981 (Ala. 1995)(citing Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 133 (Ala. 1976); Entrekin v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 519 So.2d 447 (Ala. 1987)). IV. Defendants' Daubert Challenge to Dr. Plunkett