Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp. v. Barnes
25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 12, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 3, 752 So. 2d 556 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The latent injury exception to Florida's now-repealed products liability statute of repose remains valid. A products liability claim is not extinguished by the statute of repose if the plaintiff's injury was latent and could not have been discovered within the repose period.
Facts:
- From 1972 to 1974, Earl Barnes worked as a sandblaster, where he was exposed to silica dust from sand products produced by Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation and other manufacturers.
- On July 16, 1984, Barnes's left lung was surgically removed.
- Initially, physicians informed Barnes that the lung was removed because of cancer, but several weeks later told him it was due to a fungal infection.
- Barnes did not learn that his lung problems were potentially related to silicosis from his prior exposure to silica dust until 1992.
- The diagnosis of silicosis was not officially confirmed by a tissue analysis until 1995, more than twenty years after his exposure to the silica dust.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl Barnes filed a negligence action in a Florida trial court against Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation and other manufacturers of sandblasting products.
- The manufacturers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Barnes's claim was barred by the 12-year products liability statute of repose.
- The trial court granted the manufacturers' motion for summary judgment.
- Barnes, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment, finding the claim was not barred due to the latent nature of the injury.
- The First District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida regarding the viability of the latent injury exception.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the latent injury exception to Florida's former products liability statute of repose, as established in Diamond v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., still a viable legal doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
Yes. The latent injury exception established in Diamond v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. remains viable for products liability actions where the former statute of repose is applicable. The court held that applying the statute of repose to bar a cause of action before the injury becomes manifest and discoverable is an unconstitutional violation of the right of access to courts. Reaffirming its holding in Diamond, the court reasoned that the legislature could not have intended for the statute to extinguish a claim where, through no fault of the plaintiff, the injury had not yet revealed itself. The court distinguished this products liability scenario from cases upholding the medical malpractice statute of repose and noted that it has consistently acknowledged the Diamond exception's validity in subsequent decisions.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a critical plaintiff-friendly exception to statutes of repose in Florida products liability law, particularly for cases involving diseases with long latency periods like silicosis or asbestosis. By reaffirming the Diamond exception, the Court ensures that the constitutional right of access to courts protects individuals who could not have known they were injured before the statutory deadline to sue had passed. This ruling provides a clear precedent for future cases involving latent injuries from products, preventing manufacturers from using a rigid statutory cutoff to escape liability for harms that take many years to manifest.
