Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America

While I agree that Alcoa owed a duty under the facts of this cause, I disagree with the court’s other holdings. I dissent because the court:(1) addresses an inadequate warning theory for negligence liability which Aim neither pleaded nor submitted to the jury;(2) reverses the burden of proof on an issue regarding the adequacy of the warning;(3) usurps the court of appeals’ jurisdiction for reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence; and(4) addresses the court of appeals’ standard for reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence even though Aim did not assert such a complaint by…