From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 28, 1988
519 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1988)

Opinion

No. 70818.

January 28, 1988.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance.

R. Fred Lewis of Magill Lewis, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.

Robin Thompson of Kimbrell Hamann, P.A., Miami, for respondent.


We accepted jurisdiction in Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Diaz, 507 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), to answer the following three certified questions of great public importance:

I. Should the legislative amendment of Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1983), abolishing the statute of repose in product liability actions, be construed to operate retrospectively as to a cause of action which accrued before the effective date of the amendment?

II. If not, should the decision of Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1985), appeal dismissed, 475 U.S. 1114, 106 S.Ct. 1626, 90 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986), which overruled Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1980), apply so as to bar a cause of action that accrued after the Battilla decision but before the Pullum decision?

III. In the event that the court construes the legislative amendment abolishing the statute of repose in product liability cases to operate retrospectively as to a cause of action which accrued before the effective date of the amendment, or in the event that the court decides that Pullum does not bar a cause of action, as here, that accrued after the Battilla decision, does Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) permit a court to relieve a party from a final judgment grounded on Pullum?

507 So.2d at 1199. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Since we accepted jurisdiction, we answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative in Melendez v. Dreis Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1987). Our answers to the first two certified questions make it unnecessary to answer the third.

We approve the decision below on the authority of Melendez.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Diaz v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 28, 1988
519 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1988)
Case details for

Diaz v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ORLANDO DIAZ, PETITIONER, v. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jan 28, 1988

Citations

519 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1988)

Citing Cases

State v. American Bankers Ins. Co.

Our court has held that a final judgment against a plaintiff is not, without more, a judgment having…

POZO v. PRADA

I join the opinion but add that the scope of the "prospective application" clause of Rule 1.540(b)(5),…