Creviston v. General Motors Corp., No. 37657

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtERVIN
Citation225 So.2d 331
PartiesRuth H. CREVISTON, Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and J. W. Whitesides, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 37657
Decision Date02 July 1969

Page 331

225 So.2d 331
Ruth H. CREVISTON, Petitioner,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and J. W. Whitesides, Respondent.
No. 37657.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 2, 1969.

Lawrence J. Robinson and David S. Yost, of Cramer, Robinson, Ginsburg & Ross, Sarasota, for petitioner.

Dart, Bell & Dickinson and Millican & Trawick, Sarasota, for respondent.

ERVIN, Chief Justice.

We consider here a petition for conflict certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported in 210 So.2d 755.

In February, 1962, Petitioner, Ruth H. Creviston, purchased a new Frigidaire refrigerator which was manufactured by Respondent General Motors Corporation. On December 2, 1966, while Petitioner was opening the refrigerator door its upper hinge came apart. The door fell and injured Petitioner. On April 6, 1967, Petitioner filed a four-count complaint, of which three counts were voluntarily dismissed. Count I was based on breach of implied warranty. On motion by Respondents, the trial judge dismissed Count I because he thought it was barred on its

Page 332

face by the three-year statute of limitations provided in Section 95.11(5)(e), Florida Statutes 1961, F.S.A. In affirming the trial judge, the District Court decided that the instant cause of action for personal injuries accrued when the refrigerator was purchased in 1962. The accident occurred four years and ten months after the purchase of the refrigerator. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, saying:

'* * * We are unable to find any Florida cases touching directly on the limitations of actions based on warranties although certain other personal injury cases are persuasive.

'We are of the opinion that the statute of limitations in this case is three years, based on Section 95.11(5)(e). An implied warranty is an action founded on contract not in writing and normally on actions on contracts the limitations usually commence to run when the cause of action accrues. Generally the time of the breach of the agreement and not the date of actual damages sustained commences the breach. * * *' (210 So.2d at 756, 757.)

The pertinent issue here to be decided is whether in a personal injury case founded on breach of a products liability warranty the three-year statute of limitations, Section 95.11(5)(e), dealing with unwritten contracts, 1 begins to run from the time the warranty was breached by the sale of a defective product, or whether said statute of limitations begins to run from the time the injured party discovered or should have discovered, the existence of the defect in the product constituting a breach of the warranty agreement.

We have granted conflict certiorari because the decision below appears to directly conflict with certain pronouncements adhered to in City of Miami v. Brooks (Fla.1954), 70 So.2d 306; Edgerly v. Schuyler (Fla.App.1959), 113 So.2d 737, and Miami Beach First National Bank v. Edgerly (Fla.1960), 121 So.2d 417, 82 A.L.R.2d 927.

The facts in City of Miami v. Brooks, supra, are as follows: The appellee, plaintiff below, brought suit for a breach of contract against the City of Miami for personal injuries resulting from an overdose of x-ray radiation received during treatment at appellant's hospital. The x-ray treatment was applied in 1944. The injury developed and first became known in 1949. At the time of the application of the x-ray treatment there was nothing to put the plaintiff on notice of any probable or even possible injury. The City of Miami appealed a judgment for the plaintiff, asserting that plaintiff's claim was barred by he statute of limitations. Our Court held that the statute of limitations did not commence to run until plaintiff was first put on notice that she had sustained an injury or had reason to believe that her right of action had accrued.

The facts in Edgerly v. Schuyler, supra, are as follows: The plaintiff-depositor brought suit against the defendant bank for damages resulting from the bank's payment of depositor's check upon a forged endorsement. The bank set up as an affirmative defense the failure of the depositor to commence the suit for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 practice notes
  • Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 91-0986-CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • August 7, 2001
    ...of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla.1954). See Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415, 418 (Fla.1992); Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331, 334 (Fla.1969) (explaining that the "accrual of the [underlying cause of action] must coincide with the aggrieved party's discovery or duty t......
  • R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, Nos. 82-2372
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 4, 1985
    ...a breach of warranty before December 31, 1975, are therefore not limitations-barred. 11 See Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331 (Fla.1969); Kelly Tractor Co. v. Gurgiolo, 369 So.2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Cf. Smith v. Continental Insurance Co., 326 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) ......
  • Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. (Cayman) Ltd., No. 83-854
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 1, 1984
    ...First National Bank v. Edgerly, 121 So.2d 417, and, a fortiori, in light of the later decisions of Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331 (Fla.1969), and Lund v. Cook, 354 So.2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1978). In both Brooks and Edgerly, the Florida Su......
  • Bogorff By and Through Bogorff v. Koch, Nos. 86-2550
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 18, 1989
    ...an invasion of his legal rights'." Celotex Corp. v. Meehan, 523 So.2d 141, 145 (Fla.1988) (quoting Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331, 334 (Fla.1969)). The trial court correctly found that, as a matter of law, the Bogorffs knew or should have known of the existence of their ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 91-0986-CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • August 7, 2001
    ...of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla.1954). See Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415, 418 (Fla.1992); Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331, 334 (Fla.1969) (explaining that the "accrual of the [underlying cause of action] must coincide with the aggrieved party's discovery or duty t......
  • R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, Nos. 82-2372
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 4, 1985
    ...a breach of warranty before December 31, 1975, are therefore not limitations-barred. 11 See Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331 (Fla.1969); Kelly Tractor Co. v. Gurgiolo, 369 So.2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Cf. Smith v. Continental Insurance Co., 326 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) ......
  • Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. (Cayman) Ltd., No. 83-854
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 1, 1984
    ...First National Bank v. Edgerly, 121 So.2d 417, and, a fortiori, in light of the later decisions of Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331 (Fla.1969), and Lund v. Cook, 354 So.2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1978). In both Brooks and Edgerly, the Florida Su......
  • Bogorff By and Through Bogorff v. Koch, Nos. 86-2550
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 18, 1989
    ...an invasion of his legal rights'." Celotex Corp. v. Meehan, 523 So.2d 141, 145 (Fla.1988) (quoting Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331, 334 (Fla.1969)). The trial court correctly found that, as a matter of law, the Bogorffs knew or should have known of the existence of their ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT