Diamond v. ER Squibb and Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida
397 So. 2d 671 (1981)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statute of repose that operates to bar a cause of action before the injury manifests and the claim legally accrues is unconstitutional as applied because it violates the Florida Constitution's guarantee of access to courts.

Facts:

Between July 1955 and April 1956, Nina Diamond's mother ingested the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES), marketed by E. R. Squibb and Sons, Inc. as "stilbetin," while pregnant with Nina.
The drug was administered to Nina Diamond while she was still in her mother's womb.
In May 1976, when Nina was a teenager, the Diamond family learned that in utero exposure to DES was linked to the development of cancerous or precancerous conditions in female offspring.
The Diamonds alleged that Squibb knew or should have known that the drug was not safe for its intended purpose.

Procedural Posture:

Nina Diamond and her parents filed a suit for negligence and products liability against E.R. Squibb and Sons, Inc. in a Florida circuit court (court of first instance).
Squibb moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by a 12-year statute of repose.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Squibb.
The Diamonds, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment for Squibb, the appellee.
The Diamonds, as petitioners, sought review of the appellate court's decision in the Supreme Court of Florida.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a statute of repose that bars a products liability action twelve years after the product's delivery, thereby extinguishing a claim before the latent injury could be discovered, violate the Florida Constitution's "access to courts" provision?

Opinions:

Majority - Boyd, J.

Yes. As applied in this case, the statute of repose violates the Florida Constitution's guaranty of access to courts. The court found this case to be directly controlled by its recent precedent in Overland Construction Co. v. Sirmons. In both cases, the statute of repose operated to bar the plaintiff's cause of action before it ever existed or could be discovered, thereby denying the plaintiff a judicial forum to seek redress for their injury. Because the Diamonds' right to sue was extinguished before their injury manifested and their cause of action accrued, the statute's application unconstitutionally denied them their right of access to the courts under Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution.

Concurring - McDonald, J.

Yes. The statute of repose is unconstitutional in this situation. The wrongful act and the resulting injury occurred when the drug was ingested, but the injury was latent and could not be discovered through no fault of the plaintiff. A statute that bars an action for an existing but undiscoverable injury impermissibly denies access to the courts. This is distinct from a situation where an injury is not inflicted for more than twelve years after the sale of a product.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle from the Overland case that Florida's constitutional right of access to courts places a significant limit on the legislature's power to enact statutes of repose. It establishes that a right to sue cannot be legislatively abolished before it has a chance to accrue, particularly in cases involving latent diseases or injuries like those from defective drugs. This holding protects plaintiffs whose injuries do not manifest for many years after exposure to a harmful product, ensuring they have their day in court. The decision prioritizes the individual's right to redress over the legislative goal of providing finality for potential defendants.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Diamond v. ER Squibb and Sons, Inc. (1981)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"