Case ID: so2d_515/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dionisio Jesus PINERO, et al., Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 86-1926.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 17, 1987.
    Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward Perse, Ratiner & Glinn, Miami, for appellants.
    Daniels & Hicks and Lisa M. Berlow-Lehner, Dixon, Dixon, Hurst & Nicklaus and Ralph O. Anderson, Miami, for appel-lee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

On the authority of this court’s decision in Henley v. J.I. Case Co., 510 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Sears, Roebuck & Company. We certify the same question as was certified in Henley to the supreme court as being of great public importance:

DOES THE STATUTE OF REPOSE BAR A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE THE DEATH OCCURRED MORE THAN TWELVE YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE DEATH?