NANCY HENDON AND KENNETH HENDON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
STANLEY HOME PRODUCTS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, 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.
The court reversed summary judgment in a products liability case, holding that the statute of limitations for implied warranty claims begins when the defect is discovered, not when the product is purchased. The plaintiffs timely filed suit within three years of discovering the coffee pot's defect, even though purchase occurred more than three years earlier.
The statute of limitations for implied warranty claims begins to run from the time the plaintiff first discovered or reasonably should have discovered the defect, not from the date of purchase. Therefore, the complaint filed within three years of the malfunction was timely.
“we conclude m an action on implied warranty for personal injury under the facts of this case, the three-year statute of limitations, F.S. Section 95.11(5) (e), F.S.A., begins to run from the time Petitioner first discovered, or reasonably should have discovered the defect constituting the breach of warranty.”
The Supreme Court's holding establishing that the statute of limitations begins from discovery, not purchase.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Hendons purchased a glass coffee pot from Stanley Home Products in March 1964. On June 22, 1964, when first used as intended, the bottom fell out,…
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 Implied Warranty Of Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
By a complaint as amended the appellant alleged the purchase in March of 1964 of a glass coffee pot, from the appellee dealer Stanley Home Products, Inc.; that when the item was first used as intended, on June 22, 1964, the bottom of the coffee pot “fell out” causing burns to the appellant, for which injury she sought damages, charging liability on implied warranty of fitness.
The appellee dealer answered and moved for summary judgment on the asserted ground that the complaint showed on its face the statute of limitations had run, relying on the three year statute § 95.11(5) (e).
The trial court granted summary judgment for said defendant on the authority of Creviston v. General Motors Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 755. In that case an electric refrigerator was purchased in February of 1962. On December 2, 1966, when the plaintiff was opening the refrigerator, the upper hinge of the door came apart and the door fell off causing the injuries for which recovery was there sought on the basis of breach of warranty of fitness. The complaint in the Creviston case was filed on April 5, 1967, which was more than three years after the date of purchase, but within three years of the date the door fell off.
In Creviston, the Second District Court of Appeal, affirming the trial court, held the statute of limitations began to run on the date of purchase rather than on the date of malfunction and injury.
When the appeal in the present case was heard in this court, the Creviston case was under consideration in the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, and we withheld ruling until the disposition thereof. The Supreme Court has now filed an opinion and judgment, dated July 2, 1969, in the case of Creviston v. General Motors Corp., Fla., 225 So.2d 331, quashing the decision of the district court in 210 So.2d 755. In so ruling the Supreme Court stated: * * * we conclude m an action on implied warranty for personal injury under the facts of this case, the three-year statute of limitations, F.S. Section 95.11(5) (e), F.S.A., begins to run from the time Petitioner first discovered, or reasonably should have discovered the defect constituting the breach of warranty.”
Here, by a complaint filed on June 21, 1967, the action was commenced more than three years after the time of the purchase of the coffee pot but within three years of the time of the alleged malfunction of the pot upon its initial use. Therefore, based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Creviston case, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barfield v. United States Rubber Co., 234 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…the reasons set forth below, we recede from any suggestion in our decision in Creviston that a suit based on implied warranty by an ultimate consumer against a manufacturer is based on contract. Hendon v. Stanley Home Products, Inc., Fla.App. 1969, 225 So. 2d 553, is subject to the same analysis. However, we wish to make clear that we express no opinion as to the issue of whether a suit based on implied warranty by an ultimate consumer against one other than a manufacturer is within the ambit of Section 95.1…
-
Cowan v. Turchin, 270 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…of contract. The statute of limitations applicable to Count II based upon a breach of implied warranty would be governed by Section 95.11(5) (e). Creviston v. General Motors Corporation, supra. See also Hendon v. Stanley Home Products, Fla.App.1969, 225 So. 2d 553. With respect to Counts I and III, the limitations of time set forth in Sections 95.11(3) and 95.11(4) would stand as a bar to such claims. See 2765 South Bayshore Drive Corp. v. Fred Howland, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 911 ; with respect to C…
Authorities Cited
- Creviston v. Gen. Motors Corp. & J. W. Whitesides, 225 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1969)
- Creviston v. Gen. Motors Corp. & J. W. Whitesides, 210 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)