Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1989

Hechler v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.

Hechler v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 10, 1989 · Hersey, Stone, Warner
542 So. 2d 1065; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1149; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2563; 1989 WL 47151 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Hechler v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.