Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to Florida Statutes section 95.031(2), a twelve-year products-liability statute of repose. The court receded from Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., held that the statute did not violate Florida's constitutional access-to-courts guarantee or equal protection, and approved summary judgment against Richard Pullum. The court affirmed the result of the First District Court of Appeal.

Holdings

1. Section 95.031(2) is not unconstitutionally violative of the Florida Constitution's access-to-courts guarantee.
2. Section 95.031(2) does not deny equal protection because the classification established by the statute bears a rational relationship to a proper state objective.
3. Summary judgment for the defendants was proper because section 95.031(2) barred Pullum's action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes, denied equal protection because, after Battilla, it allegedly applied irrationally to persons injured between eight and twelve years after product delivery.
2. Whether section 95.031(2) violated the Florida Constitution's access-to-courts guarantee under article I, section 21.
3. Whether summary judgment was properly entered because the statute of repose barred Pullum's products-liability action.

Disposition

approved