From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wallis v. Grumman Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 24, 1987
503 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. 86-238.

February 24, 1987.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Rosemary Usher Jones, Judge.

Melvin A. Rubin, Jerry B. Schreiber, Joseph C. Segor, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker, Fascell Hoehl and James E. Tribble and Angela L. DerOvanesian, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.


The summary final judgment in favor of the defendant, The Grumman Corporation, is affirmed on the authority of Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). As in Shaw, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following questions as being 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, ___ U.S. ___, 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?

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Wallis v. Grumman Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 24, 1987
503 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Wallis v. Grumman Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT P. WALLIS, APPELLANT, v. THE GRUMMAN CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 24, 1987

Citations

503 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Wallis v. Grumman Corp.

Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we review the decision of the Third…

Smith v. Sturm, Ruger, Smith Co.

Thus, the cause of action which had arisen in this case at the time of plaintiff's injury became barred…