Otis Elevator Company v. Theodore

1 Citing case

  1. Davenport v. Comstock Hills-Reno

    118 Nev. 389 (Nev. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that an earlier version of the repose statute with similar language did not apply to negligent maintenance claims against a landowner but would apply to bar a plaintiff's personal injury claim if it was based on design or construction defects

    1999).See, e.g., Otis Elevator Co. v. Theodore, 677 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (acknowledging that the statute of repose does not bar actions for negligent maintenance but reversing the plaintiff's trial victory because "there was no evidence to support this theory of negligent maintenance"); England v. Beers Const. Co., 479 S.E.2d 420, 424 (Ga.Ct.App. 1996) (holding that the statute of repose has "no application" to plaintiff's claim that the defendant had negligently maintained the improvement); Gorton, 995 P.2d at 1116 (noting that the applicable statute of repose did not bar a claim based on negligent maintenance, but disallowing the plaintiff from using a more-than-ten-year-old violation of the city building code to establish negligence per se). Other states have recognized the distinction by statute.