JOSEPH AVERY AND GERALDINE AVERY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
OTTAWA TRUCK CORPORATION, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL., AND NAVIERAS DE PUERTO RICO, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
The appellate court reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of Ottawa Truck Corporation in a products liability case, finding that the plaintiff's expert testimony regarding safety defects and foreseeable hazards on a tractor's catwalk created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary disposition.
Summary judgment was improper because the plaintiff's expert evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding foreseeable use and unreasonable danger that must be resolved by a fact-finder, rather than by summary disposition favoring the defendant.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when a party's evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding foreseeable use and unreasonable danger.
[2] Expert testimony stating that a product's design posed a significant crash potential and that safety devices could have prevented or lessened injuries raises a genuine is…
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“there was 'significant crash potential on the catwalk' of the tractor, that the catwalk was a 'known wor[k] space,' and that 'it could be expected and foreseeable that a person might be standing on the catwalk during the operation of the [vehicle].'”
Expert testimony establishing foreseeability of use and inherent danger that created material fact issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Joseph Avery was injured on a tractor's catwalk operated by Ottawa Truck Corporation. The tractor was designed for operation by one person, …
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 Foreseeable Use cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Of the two issues raised on appeal, we reverse on issue one. The trial court erred in granting Appellee Ottawa’s motion for summary judgment because Appellant’s evidence created a genuine issue of material fact. Mr. Wileoxon, Appellant’s expert witness, stated in his affidavit that there was “significant crash potential on the catwalk” of the tractor, that the catwalk was a “known wor[k] space,” and that “it could be expected and foreseeable that a person might be standing on the catwalk during the operation of the [vehicle].” For example, “it could be expected that someone would have to be on the catwalk while training new drivers ...” because the cab fit only one person. Wileox-on opined that the catwalk should have had a “cage built around it or [a] crash proof post, such as a trailer stop, ... as standard equipment....” Finally, Wileoxon stated that had Ottawa attached either safety device as standard equipment, Appellant’s injuries would have been prevented or lessened. The above evidence, in comparison to Ottawa’s evidence of the tractor’s intended use by only one person, the unforeseeable yet wamed-against use by more than one person, and the optional trailer stop that was not attached to the instant tractor, reveals a genuine issue of material fact concerning foreseeable use and unreasonable danger, thereby prohibiting summary judgment. Kidron, Inc. v. Carmona, 665 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Jackson v. H.L. Bouton Co., 630 So. 2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hancock v. Department of Corrections, 585 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1992); Light v. Weldarc Co., 569 So. 2d 1302, 1303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Thus, the trial court erred in granting Ottawa’s motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hancock v. Dep't OF Corr., 585 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Sapio v. State, 630 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Light v. Weldarc Co., Inc., 569 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Kidron, Inc. v. Carmona, 665 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)