Case Name: Sally HECHLER, Appellant, v. I-T-E CIRCUIT BREAKER COMPANY, a corporation, and Gould, Inc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-05-10
Citations: 542 So. 2d 1065
Docket Number: Nos. 88-0163, 88-0364
Parties: Sally HECHLER, Appellant, v. I-T-E CIRCUIT BREAKER COMPANY, a corporation, and Gould, Inc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 542
Pages: 1065–1065

Head Matter:
Sally HECHLER, Appellant, v. I-T-E CIRCUIT BREAKER COMPANY, a corporation, and Gould, Inc., et al., Appellees.
Nos. 88-0163, 88-0364.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 10, 1989.
Jack H. Vital, III, and Diana Santa-Maria of Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Betsy E. Gallagher and Stephen Schmed of Kubicki, Bradley, Draper, Gallagher & McGrane, P.A., Miami, for appellee-Gould, Inc., d/b/a Gould Nat. Batteries, Inc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer, which held that the action was barred under the applicable statute of repose. See Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985).
In Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1987), the supreme court reaffirmed the standard enunciated in Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973), concerning the constitutional guaranty of access to the courts. We reject the appellant's argument that the decision in Smith is inconsistent with the reasoning applied in Pullum. See Carr v. Broward County, 541 So.2d 92 (Fla.1989); Melendez v. Dreis and Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So.2d 735 (Fla.1987); See also the rationale in Overland Construction v. Sirmons, 369 So.2d 572 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.