Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1989
• Docket Number: No. 85-5727,85-5727
• Citation: Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 868 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1989)
• Parties: Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 12,131 Harold C. KRAMER and Joan W. Kramer, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1538

868 F.2d 1538

Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 12,131

Harold C. KRAMER and Joan W. Kramer, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporationDefendant-Appellee.

No. 85-5727.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

April 5, 1989.

Stinson, Lyons & Schuette, P.A., Douglas S. Lyons, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants.

James E. Tribble, Blackwell Walker, Fascell & Hoehl, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge, and ATKINS^*, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Following oral argument in this case, we certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court which asked if strict liability had replaced or merely supplemented implied warranty as the appropriate cause of action under Florida law in a personal injury case where no privity exists between plaintiff and defendant.Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 801 F.2d 1279(11th Cir.1986).We noted at the time that another question of great relevance to this case had been certified in Bates v. Cook, Inc., 791 F.2d 1525(11th Cir.1986), which was whether the "last act" or "significant relationships" test controlled the determination of where a cause of action arose for purposes of applying Florida's "borrowing"statute for the limitation of actions, Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 95.10.The Supreme Court of Florida has now answered both questions.Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37(Fla.1988);Bates v. Cook, Inc., 509 So.2d 1112(Fla.1987).Now that the pertinent law of Florida has been made clear, this appeal can be decided.

This case arose out of a plane crash which occurred in Virginia in 1975.Approximately two years and four months after the crash, passengers Harold and Joan Kramer, filed a personal injury action against Piper Aircraft, the manufacturer of the plane.The Kramers asserted four separate causes of action: negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

The district court entered summary judgment for Piper holding that Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, Va.Code Sec. 8.01-243, barred the Kramers' suit.The court applied Virginia's statute of limitations because it found that for purposes of Florida's "borrowing"statute, the Kramers' cause of action arose in Virginia, the lex loci delicti or the place where the crash and injuries occurred.

First, we affirm the entry of judgment for Piper on the Kramers' claims for implied warranty, although on different grounds than those relied on by the district court.

We certified a question in this case regarding the viability of the Kramers' implied warranty claims in light of the fact that they had no privity with Piper and had a separate cause of action for strict liability.Specifically, we asked the Florida court to clarify whether the recognition of a cause of action for strict liability in tort in West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80(Fla.1976) in effect abolished the cause of action for violation of implied warranty in a non-privity situation.In answering this question, the Florida Supreme Court held that "West supplants common law implied warranty in the absence of privity of contract in those instances in which a cause of action for strict liability is appropriate."Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37, 39-40(Fla.1988).Thus, a person injured while a passenger in an airplane does not have a cause of action in implied warranty separate and distinct from a strict liability action.

Prior to consideration of Piper's motion for summary judgment, the parties stipulated to a number of facts, including the fact that the Kramers were not the purchasers of the aircraft and were not in privity with Piper.Based on the answer to the certified question, the Kramers have no claim under Florida law for breach of implied warranty.

Second, as to the Kramers' tort claims, negligence and strict liability, it is apparent that the case must be remanded to the district court to apply the significant relationships test as to whether the Virginia or the Florida statute of limitations should apply.

Subsequent to the decision by the district court, the Florida Supreme Court held that conflicts of law questions should be determined with reference to the "significant relationships" test, rather than the "last act" or lex loci delicti rule.Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999(Fla.1980).After we remanded the case in light of Bishop, the district court again entered judgment for Piper, relying on Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 432 So.2d 1323(Fla. 4th DCA1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 99(Fla.1984).Pledger held that while Bishop controlled conflicts questions involving a choice of substantive law, the case did not...