ERIK JAMES GRIFFIS, A MINOR, BY HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, ET AL., APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS),
v.
J. C. PENNY COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS)
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.
This interlocutory appeal addresses whether service of process on a nonresident corporate defendant in a products liability case should be governed by Florida Statute Section 48.182 or Section 48.193. The court held that Section 48.182 applies because the alleged negligent acts occurred after that statute's effective date but before Section 48.193's effective date, and neither statute can be applied retroactively.
Section 48.182, Florida Statutes, governs service of process in this case because the alleged negligent acts took place after Section 48.182's effective date (July 1, 1970) but before Section 48.193's effective date (July 1, 1973). Neither statute can be applied retroactively to acts occurring before its enactment.
[1] A statute governing service of process on a nonresident corporate defendant cannot be applied retroactively to an alleged wrongful act or omission committed before its en…
[2] When an alleged negligent act occurred after the effective date of Section 48.182, Florida Statutes, but before the effective date of Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, se…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Neither statute can be applied retroactively to allow service as to an alleged wrongful act or act or omission committed before enactment of the statutes.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that service statutes cannot apply retroactively to conduct predating their effective dates.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs alleged that the defendant negligently manufactured a fondue pot that was distributed to J.C. Penney Company, Inc., where it was purchased …
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 Retroactive Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The question raised by this interlocutory appeal is whether the plaintiffs must obtain service of process on the nonresident corporate defendant under the provisions of Section 48.182, Florida Statutes, or Section 48.193,Florida Statutes.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant negligently manufactured a fondue pot which it distributed to J. C. Penny Company, Inc., where it was purchased in December of 1972 and given to plaintiffs as a gift. In December of 1973, the minor plaintiff was injured when the pot handle snapped causing hot oil to spill on him. Upon motions of defendant, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaint and quashed the service of process on it. After filing a second amended complaint, plaintiffs moved the court to clarify its order by ruling whether they should serve process on the defendant under Section 48.-182, Florida Statutes, or Section 48.193, Florida Statutes. The court ruled that on authority of AB CTC v. Morejon, 324 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1975), service of process would be governed by Section 48.182, Florida Statutes. This interlocutory appeal followed.
Section 48.182, Florida Statutes, became effective 1 July 1970, and Section 48.193,Florida Statutes, became effective 1 July 1973. Neither statute can be applied retroactively to allow service as to an alleged wrongful act or act or omission committed before enactment of the statutes. AB CTC v. Morejon, supra.
The alleged negligent acts of the defendant took place before December 1972, because it was then that Penny sold the allegedly defective pot to someone who gave it to plaintiffs.
Since the alleged negligent acts of the defendant took place before the effective date of Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, but after the effective date of Section 48.182, Florida Statutes, the trial court correctly ruled that Section 48.182, Florida Statutes, was applicable to this case.
This interlocutory appeal is dismissed.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rogers v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 599 F. Supp. 676 (S.D. Fla. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- AB CTC v. Morejon, 324 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1975)