SHARON PAIT, PETITIONER,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a legislative amendment abolishing the statute of repose in product liability actions does not apply retroactively to causes of action that accrued before the amendment's effective date. The Court affirmed the dismissal of a wrongful death action against Ford for a tractor that caused injury more than twelve years after its sale.
The Court answered both certified questions in the negative and affirmative, respectively. The statutory amendment abolishing the statute of repose does not operate retroactively to causes of action that accrued before its effective date. The Pullum decision applies to bar the wrongful death action because the decedent had no right to maintain an action against Ford at the time of his death, since the twelve-year statute of repose had already run.
[1] A legislative amendment abolishing a statute of repose in product liability actions does not operate retrospectively to a cause of action that accrued before the amendmen…
[2] A wrongful death cause of action that accrued after the decision in Battilla v. …
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“Mr. Pait had no right to maintain an action against Ford at the time of his death, and thus Mrs. Pait, acting as his personal representative, had no right to bring this wrongful death action.”
Establishes the crucial distinction between this case and Phlieger: the decedent must have had a right to sue within the statute of repose period for a wrongful death action to proceed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharon Pait's husband was killed on July 22, 1984, while operating a tractor manufactured and delivered by Ford Motor Company more than twelve years e…
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 Statute Of Repose cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Justice.
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal upon questions certified to be of great public importance. Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 500 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Sharon Pait’s husband was killed on July 22, 1984, while operating a tractor manufactured and delivered more than twelve years earlier by Ford Motor Company. In affirming the dismissal of her wrongful death action against Ford predicated upon a theory of product liability, the district court of appeal certified the following questions:
I. WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 95.-031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), ABOLISHING THE STATUTE OF REPOSE IN PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY 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 S0.2d 657 (FLA.1985) WHICH OVERRULED BATTILLA V. ALLIS CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 392 S0.2d 874 (FLA.1980) APPLIES SO AS TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PULLUM DECISION?
Pait, 500 So. 2d at 744. We answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative.
Our ruling is premised upon the authority of Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1987). However, by supplemental memoranda, the parties addressed the question of whether the rationale of Melendez, which was a personal injury action, is also applicable to a wrongful death action. We find the instant case indistinguishable from Melendez because in both instances the cause of action did not arise until after twelve years had elapsed from the date of the sale or delivery of the allegedly defective product.
While in Nissan Motor Co. v. Phlieger, 508 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1987), we upheld a wrongful death action filed more than twelve years after the sale of the product, we emphasized that at the time of the decedent’s death, the twelve-year period of the statute of repose had not run. As we noted, “Mr. Phlieger had a right to maintain an action against Nissan at the time of his death; and thus, Mrs. Phlieger, acting as his personal representative, had a statutory right to bring an action based on injuries suffered by Mr. Phlieger’s survivors as a result of his death.” Id. at 715. In the instant case, Mr. Pait had no right to maintain an action against Ford at the time of his death, and thus Mrs. Pait, acting as his personal representative, had no right to bring this wrongful death action.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court of appeal is approved.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.I. Case Co. v. Henley, 517 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1988)…A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE THE DEATH OCCURRED MORE THAN TWELVE YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE DEATH? 510 So. 2d at 343. We recently answered the question in the affirmative in Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 515 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1987). We quash the decision below on the authority of Pait. It is so ordered. McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.…
-
Acosta v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 592 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…lude that Mr. Acosta would have been permitted to maintain a products liability action if he were alive. Therefore, we likewise conclude that his personal representative may maintain a wrongful death action on his behalf. See Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 515 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1987). We certify conflict with the fourth district, Walker v. Miller Electric Mfg. Co., 16 F.L.W. 1386,1991 WL 82508 (Fla. 4th DCA May 22, 1991). Furthermore, because this case presents a question of great public importance, we certify the fol…
-
Mathis v. Foote Steel Corp., 515 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1987)…authority of Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Based upon the rationale of Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1987), we have now approved the decision in Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 515 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1987). Therefore, we also approve the decision of the district court of appeal in the instant case. It is so ordered. McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1987)
- Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Phlieger, 508 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1987)
- Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 500 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)