FRANCIS H. KEYES AND RUTH KEYES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FULTON MANUFACTURING CORP., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the product liability action was barred by the statute of repose, section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1983). The court affirmed the summary final judgment.
[1] A product liability action must be commenced within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser, regardless of when the defect…
[2] A statute of repose in product liability actions may be applied to bar a cause of action that accrued after a prior supreme court decision that found such statutes uncons…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued Fulton Manufacturing Corp. for injuries from a defective winch purchased in 1971. The suit was filed in 1984, alleging injury in 1984.…
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 Retrospective Operation Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal from a summary final judgment which determined that their product liability action against Fulton Manufacturing Corp. (Fulton) was barred by section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1983).1 Suit was filed by plaintiffs in May, 1984, alleging that plaintiff Francis H. Keyes was injured oh February 15, 1984, by a defective winch manufactured by Fulton. It was established that Keyes had purchased the winch on August 3, 1971. Fulton moved for summary judgment on grounds the action was barred by section 95.031(2), as it was not commenced within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser (Keyes). The trial court predicated its summary ruling on Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1985), appeal dismissed, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1626, 90 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986) (holding statute constitutional; overruling Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1980)). We affirm. Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and authorities cited. As in Shaw, we certify the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court as questions of great public importance:
I. WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 95.031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983), ABOLISHING THE STATUTE OF REPOSE IN PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS,SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY AS TO A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ACCRUED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT. II. IF NOT, WHETHER THE DECISION OF PULLUM V. CINCINNATI, INC., 476 SO .2D 657 (FLA.1985), APPEAL DISMISSED, — U.S. —, 106 S.CT. 1626, 90 L.ED.2D 174 (1986), WHICH OVERRULED BATTILLA V ALLIS CHALMERS MFG. CO., 392 S0.2D 874 (FLA.1980), APPLIES SO AS TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PUL-LUM DECISION.
Affirmed.
. Actions for products liability ... must be begun ... within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser ... regardless of the date the defect in the product ... was or should have been discovered.
. Chapter 86-272, Laws of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Ins. Underwriters v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 522 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…Co., Inc., 507 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Clausell v. Hobart Corporation, 506 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA), approved, 515 So. 2d 1275 (Fla.1987); Manuel v. EIG Cutlery, Inc., 506 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Keyes v. Fulton Manufacturing Corp., 506 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Desvergundt v. Koppers Company, Inc., 506 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Willer v. Pierce, 505 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Wallis v. Grumman Corp., 503 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA), approved, 515 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.1987); Melendez v…
-
Smith v. Sturm, 510 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ry to the way we have answered it, may require a reversal. Thus, we also certify that question to the Florida Supreme Court as being of great public importance. Affirmed. RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. . See also Keyes v. Fulton Mfg. Corp., 506 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Manuel v. EIG Cutlery, Inc., 506 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wilier v. Pierce, 505 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Desvergundt v. Koppers Co., Inc., 506 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Lazo v. Baring Industries, Inc., 508 So. 2…
-
Keyes v. Fulton Mfg. Corp., 515 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1987)…PER CURIAM. We review Keyes v. Fulton Manufacturing Corp., 506 So. 2d 1099, 1099-1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), to answer two certified questions of great public importance. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The certified questions are as follows: I. WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 95.-031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983)…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Shaw v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 503 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)