VIVIENE W. MAKOWIECKI, APPELLANT,
v.
STURM, RUGER, SMITH & COMPANY, INC., 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.
A plaintiff injured by an allegedly defective gun appeals a summary judgment based on Florida's statute of repose, which bars products liability actions more than twelve years after delivery to the original purchaser. The court affirms the summary judgment, holding the statute of repose constitutional and applicable to this case.
The statute of repose is constitutional and applies to bar this products liability action. The suit was properly dismissed on summary judgment because it was filed more than twelve years after the gun was delivered to its original purchaser in January 1973, even though the injury occurred before the twelve-year period expired.
[1] A statute of repose for products liability actions, requiring suits to be brought within 12 years of the product's delivery to the original purchaser, is constitutional.
[2] A statute of repose is constitutional as applied to causes of action that arise after the statute's enactment, even if the injury occurs after the repose period has expir…
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“Actions for products liability ... must be begun ... within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser”
Statement of the statutory repose provision that barred the plaintiff's suit
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA gun was delivered to its original purchaser in January 1973. The plaintiff allegedly suffered injury from the gun in February 1984, more than eleven…
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 Prospective Vs. Retroactive Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
The plaintiff in this personal injury products liability suit appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant. The injury was allegedly caused by a defective gun manufactured by defendant. The basis for the summary judgment was that the suit was barred by the statute of repose, section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1985), because the gun was delivered to its original purchaser more than twelve years before the suit was filed. That statute provided in relevant part that “Actions for products liability ... must be begun ... within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser— ” We affirm.
The times of the events most relevant to this appeal were as follows. The gun was delivered to its original purchaser in January 1973. The statutory twelve-year repose provision was enacted in 1974. In February 1981, in Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1980), the repose provision was held to. be unconstitutional as applied to causes of action which were barred by the statute before they arose, i.e., where the injury occurred after the expiration of the twelve-year period. The alleged injury to plaintiff occurred in February 1984. The twelve-year period expired in January 1985. The repose provision was held to be constitutional on November 4, 1985, in Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1985), which overruled Battilla. This suit was filed November 7, 1985. In 1986 the legislature repealed the provision.
We affirm on the basis of the holdings in Smith v. Sturm, Ruger, Smith & Co., 510 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); 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 Company, 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 and Conyers, 491 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
For the reasons given in Smith, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court as being of great public importance the same two questions so certified in Smith.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Smith v. Sturm, 510 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)