B.F. GOODRICH COMPANY AND KEMPER REINSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
RENEE REEBER AND MARTIN REEBER; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; WILLIAM LEHMAN BUICK, INC., AND UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this products liability case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of the Reebers against B.F. Goodrich Company and others, but on cross-appeal, modified the judgment to grant indemnity to Lehman Buick from B.F. Goodrich, finding that the plaintiff's injuries were solely caused by the manufacturer's negligence.
The court affirmed the final judgment in favor of Renee and Martin Reeber. The court also agreed that Lehman Buick is entitled to indemnity from B.F. Goodrich and directed the trial court on remand to modify the judgment to provide such indemnity.
[1] A defendant is entitled to indemnity from a manufacturer when the plaintiff's injuries were solely caused by the manufacturer's negligence.
[2] A trial court must modify a final judgment to provide indemnity to a party when the evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff's injuries were solely caused by the negligen…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We affirm the final judgment in favor of Renee and Martin Reeber in this products liability case.”
Establishes the main holding affirming the judgment for the plaintiffs
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRenee Reeber was injured in a products liability case involving a B.F. Goodrich product. The case involved B.F. Goodrich Company, Kemper Reinsurance C…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Products Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment in favor of Renee and Martin Reeber in this products liability case. See Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1962); Dory Auerbach Realty Co. v. Waser, 359 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Burgin v. Merritt, 311 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 324 So. 2d 84 (Fla.1975); Gallub v. Del Vecchio, 301 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1975); Dixie-Bell Oil Co., Inc. v. Gold, 275 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Garcia v. Lujando, 253 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Speight v. Dulimba, 208 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); General Tire v. Maddox, 372 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1980); Russell v. Guider, 362 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1978); Farmer v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 252 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 255 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1971); Washewich v. LeFave, 248 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
On cross-appeal Lehman Buick argues that it is entitled to indemnity from B.F. Goodrich since plaintiff’s injuries were solely caused by the negligence of the manufacturer. We agree with that contention and on remand direct the trial court to modify the final judgment so as to provide indemnity to Lehman from Goodrich. See Houdaille Industries v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979); Pender v. Skillcraft Industries, Inc., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Mims Crane Service, Inc. v. Insley Manufacturing Corp., 226 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 234 So. 2d 122 (Fla.1969), and cases cited therein.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (25 total)
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Mims Crane Serv., Inc. v. Insley Mfg. Corp., 226 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McCOLLUM, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1962)
- Pender v. Skillcraft Indus., Inc., 358 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Washewich v. Hollie H. LeFAVE, 248 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- LEE v. State, 275 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Gallub v. del Vecchio, 301 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Coconut Groves Bank v. M. R. Harrison Constr. Co., 234 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1969)
- Michael E. DAM, Jr., M.D. v. J. K. David, Jr., M.D., 234 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1969)