PRISCILLA WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY INDUSTRIES, A DIVISION OF MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY, 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.
Priscilla Williams appealed a summary judgment dismissing her personal injury products liability action against American Laundry Machinery Industries. The court affirmed, holding that Florida's twelve-year statute of repose in section 95.031(2) barred her claim filed seventeen years after the defendant delivered the allegedly defective laundry press, and that the Supreme Court's decision in Pullum overruling the prior unconstitutionality finding in Battilla applies retroactively.
The court held that Pullum is to be applied retroactively and that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by section 95.031(2). Because the statute of repose extinguished any products liability cause of action after twelve years, there is no further duty to warn of a defect.
[1] A statute of repose, which sets a time limit for bringing an action after the delivery of a product, may bar a products liability claim even if the injury and suit occur…
[2] A judicial decision that reinstates a statute of repose is generally applied retroactively, barring claims that would have been barred under the reinstated statute.
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“the supreme court's holding in Pullum was itself retroactive as to Mr. Pullum. Therefore, it can hardly be argued that the supreme court intended that its decision be given prospective application only.”
Establishes that retroactive application of Pullum was appropriate because the Supreme Court's own decision in Pullum was retroactive
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn allegedly defective laundry press was delivered by the defendant to the original purchaser in March 1962. The plaintiff was injured using the press…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals an adverse summary judgment entered in this personal injury products liability action. The plaintiff asserts that the court erred by applying section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1978)1 and by retroactively applying Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1985), which overruled Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1980). We affirm.
The relevant dates in this case are as follows: An allegedly defective laundry press was delivered by the defendant to the original purchaser in March, 1962.2 The plaintiff was injured in November 1978. Her lawsuit was filed February 1979, almost seventeen years after the delivery date, and thus, not within the period prescribed by section 95.031(2).
Both the injury and the filing of the suit occurred before the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Battilla, decided December 11, 1980. In Battilla, the court held that, as applied to the facts in that case, “section 95.031 denied access to courts under article I, section 21, Florida Constitution,” and was unconstitutional. 392 So. 2d 874.
In August 1985, the Florida Supreme Court receded from Battilla and held in Pullum that section 95.031(2) did not violate article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution and was thus not unconstitutional. In Pullum, application of section 95.031(2) was again held to bar products liability actions for personal injuries occurring more than twelve years after the product was delivered. Relying on Pullum, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
Plaintiff argues that Pullum should not be given retroactive effect in the present case as the opinion in Pullum does not expressly state that it is to be applied retroactively. However, as pointed out by the defendant, the supreme court’s holding in Pullum was itself retroactive as to Mr. Pullum. Therefore, it can hardly be argued that the supreme court intended that its decision be given prospective application only.
The precise issue in this case has been decided adversely to the plaintiff by this court and other district courts. We hold that Pullum is to be applied retroactively and that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by section 95.031(2). See Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Small v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 502 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 500 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Cassidy v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 495 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); and American Liberty Insurance Co. v. West & Conyers, Architects & Engineers, 491 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Although this issue is not properly before us because it is raised for the first time on appeal, we note that this court has held that the amendment repealing the twelve-year statute of repose in section 95.-031(2) is not to be applied retroactively. Small; Harrison v. Hyster Co., 502 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
We have also considered the plaintiffs argument that the defendant had a continuing “post-sale” duty to warn of or to remedy defects. We hold that because the statute of repose extinguished any products liability cause of action after twelve years, there is no further duty to warn of a defect. See Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, A. G., 635 F.Supp. 45 (N.D.Fla. 1986).
We, therefore, affirm the final summary judgment.
SCHEB*, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1978) 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....”
. The statutory twelve-year repose provision was enacted in 1974. Ch. 74-382, § 3, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Am. Laundry Mach. Indus., 513 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND • REHEARING EN BANC THREADGILL, Judge. The appellant having filed a motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc of this court’s opinion filed July 22, 1987, 509 So. 2d 1363. The motion for rehearing en banc is denied. The motion for rehearing is denied except to the extent that we agree to certify the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court as being of great public importance consistent with this court's decis…
-
Prahl v. United States Mineral Prods. Co., Inc., 636 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…-272, § 2, at 2020, Laws of Fla.). See Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 635 F.Supp. 45 (N.D.Fla.1986), aff'd, 835 F. 2d 1369 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988); Williams v. American Laundry Mach. Indus., 509 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1988). Affirmed. . See Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500 v. United States Gypsum Co., 788 F.Supp. 1173 (D.Kan.1992); Cheshire Medical Ctr. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 764 F.Supp. 213 (D.N.H.1991), vacate…
-
Walls v. Armour Pharm. Co., 832 F. Supp. 1467 (M.D. Fla. 1993)…835 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Griffin v. Ford Motor Co., 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988); Wallis v. Grumman Corp., 515 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1987); Williams v. American Laundry Machinery Industries, 509 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 881 (Fla.1988). See also Babush v. American Home Products Corp., 589 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), review denied, 599 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1992); University of Miami v. Bogorff, 58…
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)
- Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 500 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Am. Liberty Ins. Co. v. West AND Conyers, 491 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Small v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 502 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Effie Dell Cassidy v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 495 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, Ag, 635 F. Supp. 45 (N.D. Fla. 1986)
- Smith v. State, 502 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Harrison v. Hyster Co., 502 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)