Wallis v. Grumman Corporation
This text of 503 So. 2d 366 (Wallis v. Grumman Corporation) 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.
Opinion
Robert P. WALLIS, Appellant,
v.
The GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
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.
PER CURIAM.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
503 So. 2d 366, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 613, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallis-v-grumman-corporation-fladistctapp-1987.