Case Name: Fernando RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. KLAISLER MANUFACTURING CORP., Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-02-11
Citations: 520 So. 2d 28
Docket Number: No. 70822
Parties: Fernando RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. KLAISLER MANUFACTURING CORP., Respondent.
Judges: McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 520
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
Fernando RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. KLAISLER MANUFACTURING CORP., Respondent.
No. 70822.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 11, 1988.
James C. Blecke, Miami, for petitioner.
Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We review Rodriguez v. Klaisler Manufacturing Corp., 508 So.2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), to answer two certified questions of great public importance. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The certified questions are as follows:
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 SO.2D 657 (FLA.1985), APPEAL DISMISSED, 475 U.S. 1114, 106 S.CT. 1626, 90 L.ED.2D 174 (1986), WHICH OVERRULED BATTILLA v. ALLIS CHALMERS MFG. CO., 392 SO.2D 874 (FLA.1980), APPLIES SO AS TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE BAT-TILLA DECISION BUT BEFORE THE PULLUM DECISION?
We recently answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative in Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So.2d 735 (Fla.1987). We approve the decision below on the authority of Melendez.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.