Elkins v. Carroll, Maguire, and Collins, [Ms. 1150529, Aug. 12, 2016] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2016). Elkins sued co-employees pursuant to § 25-5-11(c)(2), Ala. Code 1975, based on the theory that the co-employees removed a safety device on a Dalmec brand manipulator. Noting that "[w]hen an action involves multiple claims or parties, Rule 54(b) [Ala. R. Civ. P.] gives the trial court the discretion to 'direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties.'" The Court was here concerned that the trial court's order failed to dispose of all claims as to all parties, thereby triggering the rule that "[a] ruling that disposes of fewer than all claims or relates to fewer than all parties in an action is generally not final as to any of the parties or any of the claims." [Ms. *14-15, citing Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. and Wilson v. Wilson, 736 So. 2d 633 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)]. Accordingly, the Court remanded the cause to the Madison Circuit Court under authority of Foster v. Greer & Sons, Inc., 446 So. 2d 605 (Ala. 1984), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Andrews, 520 So. 2d 507 (Ala. 1987), to certify whether it intended its judgment to be a final judgment within the meaning of Rule 54(b).
