Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation v. Barnes
Florida Supreme Court
752 So. 2d 556 (2000)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Earl Barnes (defendant), a sandblaster, used sand manufactured by Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation (PSEC) (plaintiff) for his sandblasting activities from 1972 through 1974. PSEC’s sand contained silica dust. In 1984, Barnes’s left lung was surgically removed because he had contracted actinomycosis, a fungal lung infection caused by silicosis. Silicosis is a lung disease caused by exposure to silica dust. Barnes did not know that actinomycosis was related to silica-dust exposure until 1992, and Barnes did not receive a confirmed silicosis diagnosis until 1995. Barnes then filed a products-liability lawsuit against PSEC, alleging that because PSEC’s sand contained silica dust, it had caused or contributed to his silicosis and related lung removal. PSEC challenged, arguing that Barnes’s claim was barred by the 12-year statute of repose applicable to products-liability actions. Florida’s products-liability statute of repose was repealed in 1986; however, it was still applicable to claims arising from pre-repeal tortious conduct. The trial court dismissed Barnes’s claim, holding that it was time-barred. Barnes appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding that Barnes’s claim was not time-barred because (1) Barnes’s silicosis was a latent injury; and (2) the latent-injury exception therefore stopped the running of the applicable 12-year statute of repose until Barnes received the confirmed silicosis diagnosis in 1995. PSEC appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the latent-injury exception did not apply to the products-liability statute of repose.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pariente, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.