Richard Pullum v. Cincinnati, Incorporated, the Cincinnati Shaper Company, Sti-Gro First Corp., Formerly Known As Harry P. Leu Machinery Corporation, a Dissolved Florida Corporation, Robert H. Stine, Eugenie E. Stine and Robert E. Groth, As Directors and/or Trustees of Sti-Gro First Corp.

458 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) · District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District · September 26, 1984 · No. AU-62

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment barring Richard Pullum's product-liability claims under Florida's twelve-year statute of repose. The court held that applying the statute did not violate equal protection or the constitutional right of access to courts because Pullum still had approximately one and one-half years after his injury to file suit. On rehearing, the court certified a question of great public importance concerning equal protection for persons injured by products delivered eight to twelve years before the injury.

Holdings

  1. Application of section 95.031(2) did not unconstitutionally deny Pullum access to the courts because approximately one and one-half years remained after his injury before expiration of the twelve-year repose period.
  2. Section 95.031(2) did not deny equal protection of the laws merely because persons injured between eight and twelve years after delivery could have less than four years to sue, while persons injured twelve or more years after delivery could receive four years under Overland.
  3. Summary judgment for the defendants was proper because Pullum filed his products-liability action outside the twelve-year period established by section 95.031(2).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether application of section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes, to bar Pullum's products-liability action violated the Florida Constitution's guarantee of access to courts.
  2. Whether applying the statute of repose to persons injured between eight and twelve years after product delivery denied equal protection of the laws.
  3. Whether summary judgment was proper because Pullum's action was filed more than twelve years after delivery of the product to its original purchaser.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (8)

  • Cates v. Graham, 451 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1984)(followed)
  • Purk v. Federal Press Co., 387 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1980)(followed)
  • Bauld v. J.A. Jones Construction Co., 357 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1978)(followed)
  • Overland Construction Co., Inc. v. Sirmons, 369 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1979)(applied)
  • Universal Engineering Corp. v. Perez, 451 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1982)(followed)
  • Diamond v. Squibb and Sons, 397 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1981)(compared)
  • Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1981)(applied)
  • Cobb v. Maldonado, 451 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…