ADAM BRAZIEL, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
STOKES AUTOMATIC MOLDING EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT DIVISION OF PENNWALT CHEMICALS CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment in a product liability case and certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the retroactive application of the 1983 amendment abolishing the statute of repose under Florida Statutes § 95.031(2).
The trial court properly denied summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact precluded judgment as a matter of law.
[1] Summary judgment is improper in product liability cases when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding causation or product defect.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdam Braziel brought a product liability action against Stokes Automatic Molding Equipment, a division of Pennwalt Chemicals Corporation, involving eq…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retrospective Operation Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm upon authority of Wilier v. Pierce, 505 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Small v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 502 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); and Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 500 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Further we certify under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.125(a) the following questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:
I. WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 95.031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983), ABOLISHING THE STATUTE OF REPOSE IN PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY AS TO A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ACCRUED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT.
II. IF NOT, WHETHER THE DECISION' OF PULLUM V. CINCINNATI, INC., 476 S0.2D 657 (FLA.1985), APPEAL DISMISSED, — U.S. -, 106 S.CT. 1626, 90 L.ED.2D 174 (1986), WHICH OVERRULED BATTILLA V. ALLIS CHALMERS MFG. CO., 392 S0.2D 874 (FLA.1980), APPLIES SO AS TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BATTILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PUL-LUM DECISION.
Finally, in recognition that the merits of this case may be reached if the Florida Supreme Court answers the certified questions in the affirmative, we affirm the issue on cross appeal. Cross appellant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied, because there are genuine issues of material fact which present a question for the jury and precludes entry of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 503 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Pait v. Ford Motor Co., 500 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Small v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 502 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Willer v. Pierce, 505 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)