DONALD ADKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
ECONOMY ENGINEERING COMPANY AND SAF-T-GREEN OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., APPELLEES
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, plaintiff Adkins appealed a summary judgment for defendants after sustaining injuries from falling off a scissors-lift work platform. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that plaintiff failed to present competent evidence regarding the cause of the fall, making it impossible for a jury to reasonably infer the accident's cause.
Summary judgment was properly entered for defendants because the plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, concerning the cause of the fall, making it impossible for a jury to reasonably infer the accident's cause without impermissible speculation.
[1] A plaintiff in a products liability case bears the burden of proving the cause of the accident.
[2] In the absence of competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, concerning the cause of a fall, a plaintiff cannot succeed on a claim that product design defects caused t…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because there is no competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, concerning the cause of the fall or where plaintiff was located or what he was doing when he fell, for plaintiff's cause of action to succeed it must be assumed that plaintiff was standing on the platform inside the railings, that for some reason he fell, and that the railings were too low to prevent his falling over the railings to the pavement below.”
Establishes that plaintiff's burden cannot be met without competent evidence, and the assumptions necessary to support his case are not the only reasonable inferences from the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff fell from a scissors-lift work platform manufactured by Economy Engineering Company while pressure cleaning a building. Plaintiff sustained …
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 Strict Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals a final summary judgment for defendants in this products liability case. Count I of plaintiff’s complaint alleged a cause of action in strict liability, and Count II of the complaint alleged negligence. We affirm the summary judgment for defendants.
The plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a scissors-lift work platform while pressure cleaning a building. The platform was manufactured by appellee Economy Engineering Company and sold by appellee Saf-T-Green of Jacksonville, Inc. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the work platform was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the side railings and chains were not high enough to prevent a person from falling over the side of the platform.
The plaintiff sustained head injuries when he fell, and he has no recollection of what caused the accident. One coworker was present at the time of the accident and testified that the plaintiff was on the platform which was being raised or had been raised to its extended position when the coworker turned away to look at something across the street. When he heard a noise, he turned back around and saw plaintiff falling through the air. He did not see what caused the fall. There is no indication in the record of how long a time passed between the coworker looking away and the beginning of the fall.
Because there is no competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, concerning the cause of the fall or where plaintiff was located or what he was doing when he fell, for plaintiff's cause of action to succeed it must be assumed that plaintiff was standing on the platform inside the railings, that for some reason he fell, and that the railings were too low to prevent his falling over the railings to the pavement below. However, other equally reasonable assumptions are possible, such as that plaintiff was sitting or standing or climbing on the railings, in which case the alleged low height of the railings would have had no effect on preventing the fall.
The plaintiff has the burden of proving his cause of action. In this case the record before the trial court failed to show the existence of any facts from which the jury could reasonably infer the cause of the accident. On motion for summary judgment, the party moved against is not required to file any opposing affidavits, but if the record establishes no issue of material fact “then it does become incumbent upon the party against whom the judgment is sought to demonstrate, by affidavit or otherwise, the existence of an issue of material fact in order to avoid having a summary judgment rendered against him.” Connell v. Sledge, 306 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Accordingly, the trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendants in this case.
Affirmed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., SANDERLIN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maritza Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Mfg. Co., 816 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…iewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Gonzalez, there is evidence that the tire/ wheel mismatch caused the injury. We have considered Wong v. Crown Equipment Corp., 676 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and Adkins v. Economy Engineering Co., 495 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and deem them distinguishable, as in each there was, in fact, no evidence of the cause of injury. Rodriguez’s own negligence is, if any, a matter of comparative negligence. We recognize that on appropriate facts, a trial court m…
-
Brown v. Glade & Grove Supply, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…expressed opinions as to causation sufficient to allow a jury to decide this issue. The cases relied on by defendants are distinguishable. See Reaves v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 569 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Adkins v. Economy Eng’g Co., 495 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Rhodes v. International Harvester Co., 131 Ariz. 418, 641 P. 2d 906 (Ct.App.1982). In Reaves, this court was reviewing the final judgment of the trial court and we are mindful of the stricter scrutiny that must be applied to a tr…
-
Bianchi v. Garber, 528 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…her the conditions of the walkway established a breach of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court denied the Garbers first motion for summary judgment. Subsequently, the Garbers renewed the motion citing to Adkins v. Economy Engineering Co., 495 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 503 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1987), as authority for granting their motion on the basis that, since Mrs. Bianchi did not know what caused her to fall, there was no evidence of negligence by the defendants. The court granted Garber…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grady Scott Connell v. Sledge, 306 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)