Case Title: Gordon v. John Deere Company

Citation: 264 So. 2d 419

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1972-07-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
264 So. 2d 419 (1972)
Abner Wynn GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The JOHN DEERE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 41743.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 5, 1972.
Roderic G. Magie, of Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellant.
William H. Clark, of Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, Pensacola, for appellees.
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on certificate from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit,[1] pursuant to Rule 4.61, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. The question certified is as follows:
The action commenced with the filing of a suit for personal injuries by Abner Wynn Gordon, appellant herein, in the United States District Court of Appeal for the Northern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on July 18, 1969, and alleged injuries resulting from an accident occurring on July 19, 1965. Florida Statutes *420 § 48.182, F.S.A. (set out supra footnote 2), sought to be used to obtain service on the defendant, was enacted in 1970 and has an effective date of July 1, 1970. Service attempted under Florida Statutes § 48.161 and § 48.181, F.S.A. was quashed by the United States District Court. No question has been raised on appeal or in this certificate concerning § 48.161 or § 48.181.
The United States District Court, in granting the motion to quash service under § 48.182, held:[3]
The decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Robert E. Marx, Inc. v. Scarney,[4] is in accord with the Federal District Court's decision in the instant case. In the Robert E. Marx case, the District Court of Appeal held that Florida Statutes § 48.182, F.S.A., had no retroactive application, stating:[5]
After argument and upon consideration of the briefs and authorities cited,[6] we have concluded that the statute is not to be applied retroactively and that the question certified must, accordingly, be answered in the negative.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C.J., and ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[1]  451 F.2d 234 (CCA 5th 1971).
[2]  Fla. Stat. § 48.182, F.S.A.: "Any nonresident person, firm, or corporation who in person or through an agent commits a wrongful act outside the state which causes injury, loss, or damage to persons or property within this state may be personally served in any action or proceeding against the nonresident arising from any such act in the same manner as a nonresident who in person or through an agent has committed a wrongful act within the state. If a nonresident expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in this state or any other state or nation and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce, he may be served; provided, that if such nonresident is deceased, his executor or administrator shall be subject to personal service in the same manner as a nonresident. This section shall not apply to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act. Added by Laws 1970, c. 70-90, § 1, eff. July 1, 1970."
[3]  Gordon v. John Deere Co., 320 F. Supp. 293, 295 (N.D.Fla. 1970).
[4]  253 So. 2d 722 (Fla.App.3rd 1971).
[5]  Id. 253 So. 2d  at 723.
[6]  Annot.: Retrospective Application of State Statutes Conferring In Personam Jurisdiction over Nonresidents, 19 A.L.R. 3rd 138 (1968).