Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Pinero

Supreme Court of Florida

Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Pinero

529 So. 2d 1105, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 469, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 864

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 1988

DocketNo. 71577

StatusPublished

This text of 529 So. 2d 1105 (Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Pinero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Pinero, 529 So. 2d 1105, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 469, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 864 (Fla. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI