Wade v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wade v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

508 So. 2d 1294, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8828

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1584

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 1294 (Wade v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wade v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 508 So. 2d 1294, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8828 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sued for an injury which occurred sixteen years after the machine was first sold. The issues presented are effectively the same as those considered by this court in Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and Clausell v. Hobart Corp., 506 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We affirm the trial court’s order granting the final summary judgment in favor of Caterpillar Tractor on those authorities. Consistent with the position previously adopted by this court, we certify the following questions of great public importance:

I. 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.

II. 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 PUL-LUM DECISION.

III. WOULD THE APPLICATION OF PULLUM TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PULLUM DECISION DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF OF A RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sued for an injury which occurred sixteen years after the machine was first sold. The issues presented are effectively the same as those considered by this court in Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and Clausell v. Hobart Corp., 506 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We affirm the trial court’s order granting the final summary judgment in favor of Caterpillar Tractor on those authorities. Consistent with the position previously adopted by this court, we certify the following questions of great public importance:

I. 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.

II. 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 PUL-LUM DECISION.

III. WOULD THE APPLICATION OF PULLUM TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PULLUM DECISION DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF OF A RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 1294, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-caterpillar-tractor-co-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack