Purty v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
508 So. 2d 501, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1432, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12106
Opinion
Affirmed on authority of Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We certify the same questions:
(1) Whether the legislative amendment of section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1983), abolishing the statute of repose in product liability actions, should be construed to operate retrospectively as to a cause of action which accrued before the effective date of the amendment.
(2) If not, whether 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), applies so as to bar a cause of action that accrued after the Battilla decision but before the Pullum decision.
We need not reach the remaining issues.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Purty v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 508 So. 2d 501, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1432, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12106 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).
508 So. 2d 501 (Purty v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
National Insurance Underwriters v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.
522 So. 2d 53 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
NAT. INS. UNDERWRITERS v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.
522 So. 2d 53 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Purty v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
515 So. 2d 983 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)