Failure-to-Warn Product Liability Complaint - Alabama

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO WARN (AEMLD AND NEGLIGENCE/WANTONNESS) — ALABAMA

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [____] COUNTY, ALABAMA

Case No.: [____]

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, brings this action against Defendants for personal injuries proximately caused by Defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions regarding the foreseeable risks of harm associated with [PRODUCT TYPE] (the "Product"), which Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold.

3. PARTIES

3.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is, and at all relevant times was, an individual residing in [COUNTY] County, Alabama.

3.2. Defendant [MANUFACTURER NAME] ("Manufacturer") is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business in [CITY, STATE], engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, labeling, marketing, and selling the Product, and doing business in Alabama and in this County.

3.3. Defendant [DISTRIBUTOR/SELLER NAME] ("Seller") is, and at all relevant times was, a [entity] engaged in the business of distributing and/or selling the Product in Alabama.

3.4. Fictitious Defendants A through Z, whose true names are unknown to Plaintiff, are other persons or entities in the chain of design, manufacture, or distribution of the Product. Plaintiff will amend to substitute true names when ascertained, pursuant to Rule 9(h), Ala. R. Civ. P.

4. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.1. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold of this Court, exclusive of interest and costs.

4.2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each Defendant does business in Alabama and/or placed the Product into the stream of commerce with the expectation it would be used in Alabama.

4.3. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-3-7 because [a substantial part of the events occurred / the injury occurred / a Defendant does business by agent] in this County.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Product

5.1. The Product at issue is [PRODUCT NAME / MODEL / DESCRIPTION; for a drug or device: drug/device name, NDC or model number, lot] (the "Product").

5.2. The Product was designed, manufactured, labeled, marketed, distributed, and/or sold by Defendants and reached Plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

B. The Risk and the Inadequate or Absent Warning

5.3. The Product posed a risk of [DESCRIBE RISK / HAZARD] when used in its intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, rendering it not reasonably safe absent an adequate warning.

5.4. Defendants knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the risk because: [pre-market testing; adverse-event/post-market surveillance; scientific literature; consumer complaints; regulatory communications; other — [____]].

5.5. The risk was not open and obvious to an ordinary consumer exercising reasonable care.

5.6. Defendants failed to provide any warning of the risk, or the warnings and instructions actually provided were inadequate because they [failed to describe the nature/severity of the risk; failed to describe how to avoid it; were not reasonably prominent or legible; used unclear or technical language; were not updated after the risk became known — [____]].

5.7. An adequate warning should have stated, in substance: [____].

C. Plaintiff's Use and Injury

5.8. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff [purchased / was prescribed / used] the Product in a manner that was intended and reasonably foreseeable.

5.9. On or about [__/__/____], as a direct and proximate result of the absent or inadequate warning, Plaintiff sustained [INJURY DESCRIPTION], requiring medical treatment at [PROVIDER/HOSPITAL].

5.10. Plaintiff did not misuse, alter, or modify the Product. Had an adequate warning been provided, Plaintiff would have heeded it and avoided the injury.

6. COUNT I — ALABAMA EXTENDED MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY DOCTRINE (FAILURE TO WARN)

(Against All Defendants)

6.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 5.10 as though fully set forth.

6.2. Defendants designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold the Product, which Defendants expected to, and which did, reach Plaintiff without substantial change in its condition.

6.3. Because Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions concerning the risk described above, the Product was in a defective condition and not reasonably safe when applied to its intended and reasonably foreseeable use. Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976); Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976).

6.4. The defective condition arising from the inadequate or absent warning made the Product unreasonably dangerous and was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

6.5. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

7. COUNT II — NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

(Against All Defendants)

7.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 6.5 as though fully set forth.

7.2. Defendants owed Plaintiff and other foreseeable users a duty to exercise reasonable care to give adequate and reasonable warnings of dangers inherent or reasonably foreseeable in the use of the Product, and to test, monitor, and update those warnings.

7.3. Defendants breached that duty by failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions, as described above. Under Alabama law, negligent failure-to-warn claims are separate from and not subsumed by the AEMLD.

7.4. Defendants' negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries, entitling Plaintiff to damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

8. COUNT III — WANTON FAILURE TO WARN

(Against All Defendants)

8.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 7.4 as though fully set forth.

8.2. Defendants, with reckless or conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiff and other foreseeable users, failed to warn of the risk described above despite knowledge of that risk.

8.3. Defendants' wantonness, as defined in Ala. Code § 6-11-20(b)(3), was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and supports an award of punitive damages.

9. COUNT IV — BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Against All Defendants)

9.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 8.3 as though fully set forth.

9.2. Pursuant to Ala. Code § 7-2-314, Defendants impliedly warranted that the Product was merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. A product distributed without adequate warnings is not merchantable.

9.3. The Product was not merchantable because it lacked adequate warnings, and that breach proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff gave notice within a reasonable time after discovery, or is excused from doing so.

9.4. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

10. DAMAGES

10.1. Economic Damages. Past and future medical, hospital, rehabilitative, and pharmaceutical expenses; past and future lost earnings and loss of earning capacity; and out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be proven at trial.

10.2. Non-Economic Damages. Past and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, and permanent impairment or disability, in amounts to be proven at trial.

10.3. Punitive Damages. Pursuant to Ala. Code §§ 6-11-20 and 6-11-21, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages on grounds that Defendants' wanton, malicious, or fraudulent conduct, proven by clear and convincing evidence, warrants punishment and deterrence, subject to the statutory cap.

11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

• A. Compensatory damages according to proof;
• B. Punitive damages pursuant to Ala. Code §§ 6-11-20 and 6-11-21;
• C. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• D. Costs of this action; and
• E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

12. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by struck jury on all issues so triable.

13. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [____]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (Bar No. [____])

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [(___) ___-____]

Email: [EMAIL]

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties or their counsel of record by [the AlaFile electronic-filing system / U.S. Mail / hand delivery] at the addresses below, in accordance with the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

[NAME / ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY SERVED]

[____]

[NAME OF ATTORNEY / DECLARANT]

15. ALABAMA PRACTICE NOTES

• AEMLD, not pure § 402A. Alabama rejected the no-fault concept of Restatement (Second) § 402A in Casrell and Atkins (both 1976). The AEMLD is a hybrid: selling an unreasonably dangerous (here, inadequately warned) product is treated as negligence as a matter of law, but fault-based defenses (e.g., contributory negligence, assumption of risk, lack of causal relation) remain available. Plead the AEMLD count using the "not reasonably safe / unreasonably dangerous" formulation, not pure strict liability.

• Negligence and wantonness are independent counts. The AEMLD does NOT subsume negligent or wanton failure-to-warn claims. Plead AEMLD, negligence, and wantonness as separate counts; the wantonness count is the vehicle for punitive damages.

• Contributory negligence — complete bar. Alabama is one of a small minority of pure contributory-negligence jurisdictions. Any contributory negligence by the plaintiff that proximately contributes to the injury is a complete bar to recovery on negligence-based theories. Anticipate this defense and plead facts showing reasonable use; assumption of risk is likewise a recognized AEMLD defense.

• Learned-intermediary doctrine. For prescription drugs and devices, the manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the prescribing physician. Stone v. Smith, Kline & French Labs., 447 So.2d 1301 (Ala. 1984); Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 159 So.3d 649 (Ala. 2014). Ala. Code § 6-5-530 (enacted 2015) bars a claim against a manufacturer that did not design, manufacture, sell, or supply the particular product that caused the injury — legislatively overruling Weeks's brand-name "innovator liability."

• Statute of limitations. The general personal-injury limitation is two years from accrual under Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l). Ala. Code § 6-5-502 supplies a special one-year period for claims against the original seller and, where the discovery rule applies to latent injuries, a 10-year statute of repose measured from the date the product was first put to use. Alabama has no general products statute of repose outside the § 6-5-502 latent-injury framework; verify the applicable limitation for each defendant in the chain of distribution.

• Punitive damages. Ala. Code § 6-11-20 requires clear and convincing evidence of wantonness, malice, oppression, or fraud. Ala. Code § 6-11-21 imposes statutory caps (generally the greater of three times compensatory damages or $1,500,000, with separate treatment for small businesses and physical-injury cases); verify current cap figures and constitutional review standards.

• Federal preemption. Screen for MDA preemption of PMA Class III devices (Riegel v. Medtronic) and generic-drug warning preemption (PLIVA v. Mensing).

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976)
• Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976)
• Stone v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, 447 So.2d 1301 (Ala. 1984) — https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/1984/447-so-2d-1301-1.html
• Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 159 So.3d 649 (Ala. 2014)
• Ala. Code § 6-5-502 — https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/title-6/chapter-5/article-28/division-1/section-6-5-502/
• Ala. Code § 6-2-38 (limitations) — https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama?section=6-2-38
• Ala. Code § 6-5-530 (innovator liability)
• Ala. Code §§ 6-11-20, 6-11-21 (punitive damages) — https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-6-civil-practice/al-code-sect-6-11-20/
• Ala. Code §§ 7-2-314, 7-2-315 (implied warranties)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Alabama must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.