JUAN DOMINGUEZ AND GRACELA DOMINGUEZ, PETITIONERS,
v.
BUCYRUS-ERIE 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 upheld the dismissal of a product liability action brought by Juan Dominguez for injuries sustained more than twelve years after machinery delivery, holding that the 1983 legislative abolishment of the statute of repose did not apply retrospectively to causes of action that accrued before its effective date, and that Dominguez could not rely on the overruled Battilla decision to establish detrimental reliance.
The Court held that the 1983 amendment abolishing the statute of repose does not apply retrospectively to causes of action accruing before its effective date; that the Pullum decision applies to bar causes of action accruing between Battilla and Pullum; and that petitioners failed to establish detrimental reliance upon the Battilla decision.
[1] A statute of repose, providing that product liability actions must be commenced within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purcha…
[2] When a judicial decision holding a statute unconstitutional is subsequently overruled, the statute becomes valid from its original effective date.
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“Pursuant to article Y, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we review Dominguez v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 503 So.2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), to answer two questions certified to be of great public importance.”
Establishes the Court's authority to review the case under the constitutional certification procedure for questions of great public importance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuan Dominguez was injured in May 1982 by machinery manufactured in 1959 by Bucyrus-Erie Company, more than twelve years after delivery to the origina…
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 Product Liability Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to article Y, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we review Dominguez v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 503 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), to answer two questions certified to be of great public importance.
Juan Dominguez was injured in May 1982 by machinery manufactured in 1959 by the Bucyrus-Erie Company. The injury occurred more than twelve years following delivery of the equipment to the original purchaser. The Third District affirmed the dismissal of Dominguez’ product liability action and certified the following questions to this Court:
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, 475 U.S. 1114, 106 S.CT. 1626, 90 L.ED.2D 174 (1986), WHICH OVERRULED BATTILLA v. ALLIS CHALMERS MFG. CO., 392 SO.2D 874 (FLA.1980), APPLIES SO AS TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PULLUM DECISION?
Id. at 365. We recently answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative in Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1987).
The petitioners also raise an issue in this case that was not specifically discussed in the Melendez opinion. They contend that, notwithstanding this Court’s opinion in Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1985), upholding the constitutionality of § 95.031(2), they are entitled to relief because of reliance upon our earlier decision of Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1980), which declared the statute unconstitutional as applied. This exact issue was resolved in Brackenridge v. Ametek, Inc., 517 So. 2d 667 (Fla.1987), under similar facts as presented here. For the reasons expressed therein, we find there was no detrimental reliance upon Battilla by the petitioners.
We approve the decision of the district court of appeal.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1985)
- Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1987)
- Dante A. Battilla and Gail A. Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co. & Travelers Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1980)
- Humphrey v. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Assn., 475 U.S. 1114 (U.S. 1986)
- Rhode Island v. Manocchio, 475 U.S. 1114 (U.S. 1986)
- Brackenridge v. Ametek, Inc., 517 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1987)
- Lane v. Koehring Co., 503 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)