Diamond v. E. R. Squibb and Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-980,78-980 |
| Citation | 366 So.2d 1221 |
| Parties | Nina DIAMOND, Adele Diamond and William Diamond, Appellants, v. E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Weinstein & Krasnow, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.
Plaintiffs Nina Diamond and her parents, Adele and William Diamond, appeal a summary final judgment for the defendant drug manufacturer based upon the determination that their action for product liability is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Defendant, E. R. Squibb and Sons, Inc., manufactured a drug for pregnant women called "Stilbetin", more commonly referred to as DES (diethylstilbestrol). During the period of her pregnancy with Nina from July 1955-April 1956, Adele was prescribed and ingested Stilbetin. Subsequently in May 1976 the Diamonds learned that Stilbetin was a cancer producing agent and females whose mothers had ingested the drug were developing cancerous or precancerous vaginal contamination as a result. Thereupon, the Diamonds in April 1977 filed the instant complaint for damages against Squibb on the grounds of negligence and strict liability. They alleged that (1) Squibb knew or should have known 1 that Stilbetin was a defective and a cancer producing agent prior to the administration of the drug to Adele Diamond and (2) Nina has developed or will develop cancerous lesions. Squibb moved for summary judgment on the ground that this action was commenced well in excess of 12 years after the last date of delivery of the drug (i. e. April 1956) and, therefore, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1977). 2 After a hearing, summary judgment was entered for Squibb and the Diamonds appeal.
Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1977) clearly requires that product liability actions as in the instant case be brought within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to the original purchaser regardless of when the defect in the product should have been discovered. The present action being filed well after this 12-year period, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment for Squibb. See Affirmed.
Bauld v. J. A. Jones Const. Co., 357 So.2d 401 (Fla.1978).
---------------
1 by proper testing.
2 " § 95.031
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.
...52 N.J. 202, 245 A.2d 1 (1968).6 See Ramirez, supra, 171 N.J.Super. at 277 & n. 2, 408 A.2d 818 (citing Diamond v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 366 So.2d 1221 (Fla.App.1979); (1979) Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 3380; Note, Limitation of Action: Strict Liability in Tort The Legislature has Intervene......
-
Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
...See O'Connor v. Altus, 67 N.J. 106, 335 A.2d 545 (1973), Comptroller v. King, 217 Va. 751, 232 S.E.2d 895 (1977), Diamond v. Squibb, Fla.App., 366 So.2d 1221 (1979). See also, Grissom v. North American Aviation, Inc., 326 F.Supp. 465 During argument in this case the plaintiff asserted, appa......
-
Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.
...product to the original purchaser, regardless of when the defect was or should have been discovered, See Diamond v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 366 So.2d 1221 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979). ...
-
Vilardebo v. Keene Corp.
...of the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. E.R. Squibb and Sons, supra, quashing this court's opinion in Diamond v. E.R. Squibb and Sons, 366 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). ...