Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 55908
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Citation | 392 So.2d 874 |
| Docket Number | No. 55908,55908 |
| Parties | Dante A. BATTILLA and Gail A. Battilla, his wife, Appellants, v. ALLIS CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1980 |
Page 874
v.
ALLIS CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1981.
Walter G. Campbell, Jr. of Krupnick & Campbell, and Nancy Little Hoffmann, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Steven R. Berger of Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard, Miami, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before the Court on appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County. The judgment passed upon the validity of a state law. The notice of appeal was filed January 12, 1979. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const. (1972).
The circuit court held that this product liability action was barred by the statute of limitations, section 95.031, Florida Statutes (1975). We reverse on the authority of Overland Construction Co. v. Sirmons, 369 So.2d 572 (Fla.1979), and hold that, as applied to this case, section 95.031 denies access to courts under article I, section 21, Florida Constitution. See also Purk v. Federal Press Co., 387 So.2d 354 (Fla.1980); Bauld v. J. A. Jones Construction Co., 357 So.2d 401 (Fla.1978).
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion, with which OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
McDONALD, Justice, dissenting.
I disagree that there is anything unconstitutional about section 95.031(2). Although I recognize that the language in Overland 1 is such that it could be authority to extend its application to this section, I would limit that holding to section 95.11(3)(c). I do this not for any reason expressed or exceptions made in Overland but because a twelve-year limitation may be reasonable for liability for manufactured products and not for liability for improvements to real property.
Until the decision of Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So.2d 299 (Fla.1956), Florida recognized the early common law rule which inhibited recovery where there was no privity of contract. Since then the law of products liability has evolved to the point that we now recognize liability of a manufacturer which sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. 2
Page 875
This developing liability of a manufacturer creates a policy dispute. It could be logically argued that once a product is manufactured and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 82-95-A
...be insulated from liability, while makers of short-lived products are singled out for product liability." In Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980), the Supreme Court of Florida issued a per curiam opinion that invalidated a statute of repose in products-liab......
-
Felts v. State, BJ-413
...in Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985), to recede from the majority decision in Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980) (holding unconstitutional the statute of repose in section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes), based on an apparent change of mind express......
-
Hanson v. Williams County, 11066
...the injury. It should also be noted that the foregoing cases refer to, and in some instances partially rely upon, Batilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980), or Overland Const. Co. v. Sirmons, 369 So.2d 572 (Fla.1979), in which the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the ......
-
Boudreau v. Baughman, 409PA87
...to governing this case. --------------- 1 In response to confusion about its constitutionality, see Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980) (holding statute of repose unconstitutional); Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985), appeal dismissed, 475 U.S. 11......
-
For Whom the Statute Tolls: An Analytical Look at the Tolling Provision in Florida's Product Liability Statute of Repose.
...resources on claims for which [section]95.031(2)(d) offers no tolling relief. (1) In Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 392 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court held the statute of repose invalid as a denial of access to the courts. Five years later, in Pullum v.......