Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortnegligencestatutestatute of limitationsseizure
tortdamagesnegligencestatutestatute of limitations

Related Cases

Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co., 220 F.2d 152, 1955 A.M.C. 523
View Case »
Tooker v. Lopez, 24 N.Y.2d 569, 249 N.E.2d 394, 301 N.Y.S.2d 519
View Case »
Siegelman v. Cunard White Star Limited, 221 F.2d 189, 1955 A.M.C. 1691
View Case »
Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239
View Case »
Garza v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 418 S.W.2d 595
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Merkle v. Robinson, 737 So.2d 540, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S321

Facts

Robinson, a West Virginia resident, filed suit in Pinellas County, Florida, against the estate of Dr. Carmelo Terlizzi for injuries allegedly caused by Dr. Terlizzi's medical negligence during her delivery on May 12, 1977. The delivery occurred in West Virginia, where Robinson was born with perinatal asphyxia, hypoxia, and a seizure disorder. Dr. Terlizzi practiced in West Virginia before retiring to Florida, where he died in 1987. Robinson argued that the West Virginia statute of limitations should apply since the negligent conduct occurred there and the parties were residents at that time.

Robinson, a West Virginia resident, filed suit in Pinellas County, Florida, against the estate of Dr. Carmelo Terlizzi to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by Dr. Terlizzi's medical negligence during her delivery and birth on May 12, 1977.

Issue

Does the significant relationship test adopted in Bates v. Cook for applying Florida's borrowing statute also apply to cases involving Florida's statute of limitations?

DOES THE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TEST ADOPTED IN BATES V. COOK, 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA'S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION 95.10, FLORIDA STATUTES, ALSO APPLY TO CASES INVOLVING FLORIDA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SECTION 95.11, FLORIDA STATUTES?

Rule

In tort actions involving more than one state, all substantive issues should be determined according to the law of the state having the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties.

This Court has held that in tort actions involving more than one state, all substantive issues should be determined in accordance with the law of the state having the most 'significant relationship' to the occurrence and parties.

Analysis

The court applied the significant relationship test to determine that West Virginia had a more significant relationship to the case than Florida. The injury occurred in West Virginia, the parties were residents there at the time, and the doctor-patient relationship was established and concluded in West Virginia. Therefore, the court concluded that Florida's statute of limitations should not bar the action since it was not time-barred under West Virginia law.

The district court held that 'Florida's statute of limitations should not be used to bar a cause of action which arose in another state or territory when that state or territory has the more significant relationship to the cause of action, and the action is not barred in the foreign state.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, approved the decision of the District Court, and disapproved the conflicting decision from the Third District.

Accordingly, we answer the rephrased certified question in the affirmative, approve the decision below, and disapprove Rodriguez v. Pacific Scientific Co., 536 So.2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Who won?

Robinson prevailed in the case because the court determined that the significant relationship test applied, allowing her claim to proceed under West Virginia's statute of limitations, which was not time-barred.

Robinson argues the West Virginia statute of limitations applies to this action because the negligent conduct which gave rise to the cause of action occurred in West Virginia and because the parties were West Virginia residents at the time of the occurrence.

You must be