Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Pinero

Full title: SEARS, ROEBUCK COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. DIONISIO JESUS PINERO, RESPONDENT

Court: Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Aug 18, 1988

529 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1988)

Opinion

No. 71577.

August 18, 1988.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance; Third District — Case No. 86-1926.

Ralph O. Anderson of Daniels and Hicks, P.A., and Dixon, Dixon, Nicklaus Valle, Miami, for petitioner.

Edward A. Perse of Horton, Perse Ginsberg and Ratiner Glinn, P.A., Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We review Pinero v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 515 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, to answer the following certified question of great public importance:

DOES THE STATUTE OF REPOSE BAR A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE THE DEATH OCCURRED MORE THAN TWELVE YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE DEATH?

515 So.2d at 422-23.

As respondent concedes, we already have answered that question in the affirmative in J.I. Case Co. v. Henley, 517 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1988), and Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 515 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1987). See Melendez v. Dreis Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1987). Accordingly, we quash the decision below.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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