MICHELSON
v.
AEROVIAS NACIONALES DE EQUADOR, ET AL.
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.
Pilot Michelson sued for injuries from a 1968 aircraft crash in Nicaragua, but the Florida circuit court granted summary judgment for defendant Air Carrier Engine Services, Inc., finding the claim barred by Nicaragua's one-year statute of limitations, which Florida's borrowing statute required the court to apply.
The plaintiff's claim is barred on two grounds: (1) Florida's borrowing statute requires application of Nicaragua's one-year statute of limitations, and (2) the cause of action itself was extinguished by the lapse of that same one-year period under Nicaraguan law. Summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law with no genuine issues of material fact.
[1] Florida's "Borrowing Statute" adopts the statute of limitations of the place where the cause of action arose.
[2] The law of the place where the cause of action arose applies to suits brought in Florida.
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“Florida is committed to the rule that the law of the place where the cause of action arose applies to suits brought in the state of Florida.”
Establishes the conflict-of-law principle requiring application of Nicaraguan law to this case arising from a Nicaraguan accident.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was injured as pilot of a C-47 aircraft that crashed shortly after takeoff from Las Mercedes Airport in Managua, Nicaragua on September 18, …
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 Prescription (Statute Of Limitations) cases and more on FLexlaw
Summary final judgment: This cause came on for hearing pursuant to due notice whereupon it is ordered and adjudged as follows —
It appears from pleadings and affidavits on file in this cause that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the passage of time. Plaintiff was injured in the crash of a C-47 aircraft, of which he was the pilot, shortly after lift off from Las Mercedes Airport at Managua, Nicaragua on September 18, 1968. This action was commenced by the filing of the complaint on September 17, 1971, a date one day short of three years after the accident.
Plaintiff’s case is barred on two grounds. First, the Nicaragua statute of limitations, sometimes called prescription, is adopted by Florida’s “Borrowing Statute” (F.S. §95.10). The Nicaraguan statute of limitations is set forth in §§868 and 869 of the Nicaraguan Civil Code. §915 of the Nicaraguan Code applies the one year period to the right to bring suit. Second, the cause of action itself was extinguished by the lapse of the same one year period as provided in the Code, §§902, 903 and 915. See Perry v. Lewis, 6 Fla. 555 (1856).
The cause of action arose in Nicaragua. Florida is committed to the rule that the law of the place where the cause of action arose applies to suits brought in the state of Florida. Hopkins v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 201 So.2d 743 (Fla. 1967). See also Messinger v. Tom, 203 So.2d 357 (Fla. App. 2, 1967); Lescard v. Keel, 211 So.2d 868 (Fla. App. 2, 1968); Ideal Structures Corp. v. Levine, 395 F. 2d 917 (5 Cir. 1968) and Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 401 F. 2d 593 (5 Cir. 1969).
With respect to the question or issue of whether or not plaintiff’s claim is time barred, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the defendant, Air Carrier Engine Services, Inc., is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Final summary judgment be, and the same is hereby entered in favor of the defendant, Air Carrier Engine Services, Inc., and with respect to said defendant, plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint and said defendant shall go hence without day. Defendant shall recover costs, if any, to be taxed on appropriate motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hopkins v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 201 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1967)
- Perry v. Lewis, 6 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1856)
- Brown v. The State of N.J., 395 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1968)
- Messinger v. TOM, 203 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- In re Est. of C. N. Shelton, 211 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 401 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968)