Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Pinero

529 So. 2d 1105, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 469, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 864
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided August 18, 1988·No. No. 71577·Published

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

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

529 So. 2d 1105 (Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Pinero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Melendez v. Dreis and Krump Mfg. Co.
515 So. 2d 735 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Pait v. Ford Motor Company
515 So. 2d 1278 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Pinero v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
515 So. 2d 422 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
J.I. Case Co. v. Henley
517 So. 2d 692 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)