86-1025 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Feb 11, 1987
Juan DOMINGUEZ and Gracela Dominguez, Appellants,
v.
BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Lisa Bennett, Robert F. Weiner, Coral Gables, for appellants.
Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton & Douberley, Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin and Maureen E. Lefebvre and Marc Cooper, Miami, for appellee.
*365 Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed on authority of Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So. 2d 362" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1987-03-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/shaw-v-general-motors-corporation-1845753?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1845753">503 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We certify the same questions:
(1) 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.
(2) If not, whether the decision of Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657" court="Fla." date_filed="1985-08-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pullum-v-cincinnati-inc-1689005?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1689005">476 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1985), appeal dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 1626" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1986-04-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/humphrey-v-committee-on-professional-ethics--conduct-of-the-iowa-state-bar-assn-9053640?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9053640">106 S. Ct. 1626, 90 L. Ed. 2d 174" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1986-04-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-v-public-service-commission-9053642?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9053642">90 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1986), which overruled Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So. 2d 874" court="Fla." date_filed="1980-12-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/battilla-v-allis-chalmers-manufacturing-co-1678982?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1678982">392 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1980), applies so as to bar a cause of action that accrued after the Battilla decision but before the Pullum decision.
FERGUSON, Judge, specially concurring.
Affirmance is required by Shaw; otherwise I would dissent. The reason for giving the revised section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), retrospective application is most compelling.
The Florida Constitution, article I, section 21, provides that "[t]he courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury." This provision was adopted to give constitutional vitality to the maxim that for every wrong there is a remedy. Holland ex rel. Williams v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129" court="Fla." date_filed="1944-11-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/holland-v-mayes-3387879?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3387879">155 Fla. 129, 19 So. 2d 709 (1944).
Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657" court="Fla." date_filed="1985-08-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pullum-v-cincinnati-inc-1689005?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1689005">476 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1985), appeal dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 1626" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1986-04-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/humphrey-v-committee-on-professional-ethics--conduct-of-the-iowa-state-bar-assn-9053640?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9053640">106 S. Ct. 1626, 90 L. Ed. 2d 174" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1986-04-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-v-public-service-commission-9053642?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9053642">90 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1986), effectively shut the courthouse door on a cause of action in certain product liability cases even before the cause of action accrued, leaving a person injured by another private person without a remedy. The 1986 revision to section 95.031(2) was a prompt legislative overruling of Pullum.
We are not paralyzed, by policy or precedent, from giving the corrective legislation retrospective application to a case which was sandwiched between Battilla and Pullman, so that substantial justice and right shall prevail as contemplated by the constitution. Our duty as an appellate court in construing a statute is first to reconcile it with constitutional mandates. See Biggs v. Smith, 134 Fla. 569, 184 So. 106 (1938).