EFFIE DELL CASSIDY, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF KENNETH CASSIDY, FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF KENNETH CASSIDY, AND SHARON CASSIDY, AS WIFE OF KENNETH CASSIDY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE BUDD COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants sought review of a summary judgment dismissing their products liability action on statute of limitations grounds under Florida Statute section 95.031(2), which required such actions to be filed within 12 years of product delivery. The court affirmed, holding that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Pullum upholding the statute's constitutionality applies retroactively to bar the appellants' action, despite being filed after the prior contrary decision in Battilla.
The court held that Pullum applies retroactively to bar appellants' products liability action. Judicial decisions overruling prior precedent are generally given retroactive effect as they are deemed to relate back to the statute's enactment. Appellants demonstrated no substantial inequity or unfairness warranting departure from this general rule.
[1] A statute of repose for products liability actions, requiring commencement within 12 years of delivery of the completed product to the original purchaser, is constitution…
[2] Judicial decisions overruling earlier precedent are generally given retroactive effect, relating back to the statute's enactment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“section 95.031(2) denies access to courts under article I, section 21, Florida Constitution”
The holding from Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co. that section 95.031(2) was unconstitutional, which was later overruled by Pullum
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Cassidy was injured in 1982 by an allegedly defective product (a vehicle or component thereof) more than twelve years after its delivery to th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reliance On Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellants seek review of a summary final judgment entered in a products liability action for a 1982 injury, asserting that the court erred by applying section 95.-031(2), Florida Statutes. We affirm the order appealed.
Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1982),1 provided that:
Actions for products liability ... must be begun ... within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser....
Appellants’ action involves an injury which occurred more than twelve years after the allegedly defective product was delivered to the original purchaser, and the action was thus not begun within the period prescribed by section 95.031(2). Both the injury and the commencement of the action occurred subsequent to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1981), that in those circumstances “section 95.031(2) denies access to courts under article I, section 21, Florida Constitution.” However, after appellants’ action was filed the supreme court receded from Battilla and upheld the constitutionality of section 95.031(2) in Pullum v. Cincinnati Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1985). As in the present case, in Pullum summary judgment was granted to bar a products liability action by application of section 95.031(2).
Appellants contend that Pullum should not be given effect in the present case, since appellants action was filed after the decision in Battilla but prior to the decision in Pullum. However, appellants have shown no substantial inequity or unfairness which would result upon application of the Pullum ruling, nor does the decision in Pullum suggest that it should be limited to prospective application.2 As indicated in Florida Forest & Parks Service v. Strickland, 18 So. 2d 251 (Fla.1944), decisions overruling earlier precedent are generally given retroactive effect whereby judicial construction of a statute is deemed to relate back to the enactment of the statute. Appellants have shown no cause to depart from this general rule in the present case.3 We therefore determine that Pullum should be given effect and appellants’ action is barred by section 95.-031(2), Florida Statutes (1982).
The order appealed is affirmed.
SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . The statute has since been amended. See Chapter 86-272, Laws of Florida (1986).
. Appellants’ only suggestion of reliance on Bat-tilla is the financial cost of initiating litigation. This assertion does not encompass a detrimental change in legal position, and such financial reliance does not preclude application of the Pullum decision in the present case. We note also that in denying rehearing the supreme court in Pullum rejected a contention that the decision should not apply to a pending action.
. Several cases in federal district court have addressed this issue with varying results. E.g. compare Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 635 F.Supp. 45 (N.D.Fla.1986), and Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 631 F.Supp. 1144 (S.D.Fla.1986), with George v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Case No. GCA-85-0117-MMP (U.S.D.C.N.Fla. June 13, 1986), and Owens v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Case No. 84-350-Civ-T-10 (U.S.D.C.M.Fla. Jan. 28,1986) [Available on WESTLAW, DCTU Database].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1987)…it was to apply retrospectively [*737] as well as prospectively. All of the district courts of appeal that have considered the question have ruled that Pullum has retrospective application. Shaw; Small; Pait; Cassidy v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 495 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This case differs from our recent decision in Nissan Motor Co. v. Phlieger, 508 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1987), in which a product liability action was preserved because it was filed within the statute of limitations for wrongful death a…
-
City OF Daytona Beach v. Amsel, 585 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…and prospectively, unless declared by the opinion to operate prospectively only. Melendez v. Dreis and Krump Mfg. Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1989); Black v. Nesmith, 475 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also Cassidy v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 495 So. 2d 801, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 802, 108 S.Ct. 45, 98 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987) — “decisions overruling earlier precedent are generally given retroactive effect whereby judicial construction of a statute is deemed to relate back to the enac…
-
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Phlieger, 508 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1987)…pose. Like the claimant in Strickland, respondent had relied on the existing statutory construction to her detriment, and as to her, Pullum should not be applied retroactively. The recent decisions in Pait and Cassidy v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 495 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which Pullum was retrospectively applied may be distinguished because in both of those cases the accidents occurred beyond the twelve-year period of the statute of repose. There, the claimants’ rights were acquired only as a…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Toley Engebretsen v. Engebretsen, 154 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1944)
- Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1985)
- Dante A. Battilla and Gail A. Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co. & Travelers Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1980)
- Lamb Ex Rel. Donaldson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktienge-Sellschaft, 631 F. Supp. 1144 (S.D. Fla. 1986)
- Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, Ag, 635 F. Supp. 45 (N.D. Fla. 1986)