Smith v. Continental Ins. Co., 75--329
| Decision Date | 30 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--329,75--329 |
| Citation | 326 So.2d 189 |
| Parties | 18 UCC Rep.Serv. 1220 Harry SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mulholland & Hapner and Gordon & Maney, Tampa, for appellant.
Michael N. Brown of Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for appellees.
The trial court entered a summary final judgment in favor of the appellees/defendants, finding the appellant/plaintiff's cause of action based on negligence and implied warranty to be barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. We reverse.
The appellant/plaintiff Harry Smith, Jr. sued various defendants to recover for personal injuries, joining the appellees Kovens, and their insurer as additional defendants on March 22, 1973. Plaintiff Smith alleged that he was an invitee at Causeway Inn in Hillsborough County on April 29, 1969, and that while still in the dining room talking with a friend at the conclusion of dinner, he was struck and injured by a chandelier which fell from the ceiling. The fact that the appellees Kovens, as building contractors, completed the building no later than 1961 is undisputed.
The effect of the trial court's ruling was to hold: (a) the statute of limitations commenced running at the time of alleged negligence by the defendant builders and not from the time of the plaintiff's injury; and (b) the plaintiff's cause of action on the theory of implied warranty was barred since it was brought more than three years after the statute started running.
This appeal, therefore, presents two questions. First, when the satute of limitations starts running in an action to recover for personal injuries when based on either negligence or implied warranty; and second, the limitations period applicable for suit on theory of implied warranty against a building contractor by a plaintiff not in privity with the contractor. 1
A statute of limitations starts running when there has been notice of invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiff, I.e., when he has been put on notice of his right of action. This long has been held to be the law in actions based on negligence. See City of Miami v. Brooks, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 306; Seaboard Air Line RR. Co. v. Ford, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 160; Foley v. Morris, Fla.App.2d 1976, 325 So.2d 35. Likewise, where an action is based on breach of implied warranty in products liability cases, it is generally held the statute starts running from the time the buyer first discovers or reasonably should discover the defect and not from the date of purchase. Creviston v. General Motors Corp., Fla.1969, 225 So.2d 331. The same reasoning should apply here since a plaintiff invitee who is not in privity with the contractor would not be on notice of any right of action until he has been injured. Obviously, in this case that time was when the plaintiff was struck by a falling chandelier. See Vilord v. Jenkins, Fla.App.2d 1969, 226 So.2d 245. Appellees' reliance on 2765 South Bayshore Drive Corp. v. Fred Howland, Inc., Fla.App.3d 1968, 212 So.2d 911, and Cowan v. Turchin, Fla.App.4th 1972, 270 So.2d 449, is misplaced for unlike the case at bar, these cases involved actions by one contracting party against another where the injured party had an opportunity for inspection prior to acceptance of the completed building or equipment. Therefore, we must reverse the trial court's dismissal of the negligence count.
In Barfield v. U.S. Rubber Co., Fla.App.2d 1970, 234 So.2d 374, we rejected the contention that a consumer's action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holdridge v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. of Santa Barbara
...55 Cal.2d 573, 12 Cal.Rptr. 257; 360 P.2d 897 (1961); Hepp Brothers, Inc. v. Evans, 420 P.2d 477 (Okl.1966); Smith v. Continental Insurance Co., 326 So.2d 189 (Fla.App.1976); Puretex Lemon Juice, Inc. v. S. Riekes & Sons of Dallas, Inc., 351 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App.1961). However, these cas......
-
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman
...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) (in action based on breach of implied warranty, statute of limitations starts running from time buyer first disco......
-
Elizabeth N. v. Riverside Group, Inc.
...General Motors Corporation, 225 So.2d 331 (Fla.1969); Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So.2d 908 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Smith v. Continental Insurance Company, 326 So.2d 189 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Lauck v. General Telephone Company, 300 So.2d 759 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); and Barfield v. United States Rubber Comp......
-
Keller v. Reed
...DCA), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1978); Neff v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 354 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA1978), citing Smith v. Continental Ins. Co., 326 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA1976). See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane, 565 So.2d 1323 (Fla.1990); Flanagan v. Wagner, Nugent, 594 So.2d 776 (F......