Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 402(A)

344 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Speyer, Inc. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co. & A. O. Smith Corp. Speyer, Inc.
  403 F.2d 766· 3d Cir.· 1968-11-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of driver negligence as the proximate cause of the fire was not clearly erroneous, and that neither defendant could be held liable under strict liability principles due to substantial modification of the product or not being a 'seller
• Ferayorni v. Hyundai Motor Co. & Hyundai Motor Am. Corp.
  711 So. 2d 1167· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-04-08 ·cited 39×
  A wrongful death action arising from a teen's death in a car accident where she improperly wore a Hyundai Excel's seatbelt. The appellate court affirmed the jury's no-liability verdict but remanded for a new trial on the estate's strict liability failure-to-warn claim, establishi
• Lewis v. Timco, Inc.
  716 F.2d 1425· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the doctrine of comparative fault applies in products liability suits maintained under the maritime jurisdiction of federal courts, even when liability is based on strict liability.
• Force v. Ford Motor Co. & Mazda Motor Corp.
  879 So. 2d 103· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-08-06 ·cited 38×
  This product liability case addresses whether Florida recognizes the consumer-expectation test for design defect claims and whether it applies to allegedly defective seatbelt systems. The court reversed a jury verdict for the defendants, holding that the consumer-expectation test
• Wilfredo Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  717 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-21 ·cited 38×
  Punitive damages may be awarded in strict products liability cases under Virgin Islands law, but require proof of outrageous conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
• Rhynes v. Branick Mfg. Corp.
  629 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 37×
  The court held that it would not adopt the product line rule as Texas law because it represents a radical extension of existing Texas product liability theory.
• Bosse v. Litton Unit Handling Sys.
  646 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instructions on foreseeability were inadequate, requiring a new trial on Litton's liability, and that Litton was entitled to indemnification from Werner under their contract. The dismissal of the strict liability claim was affirmed.
• Posttape Assocs. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  537 F.2d 751· 3d Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the imputation of a principal's knowledge of trade usage to the partnership and in excluding evidence of the plaintiff's insurance coverage, both of which were relevant to establishing an agreement to l
• Foster v. DAY & Zimmermann, Inc.
  502 F.2d 867· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-13 ·cited 35×
  The court held that Iowa law, including strict liability, was properly applied to a defective military grenade fuse manufactured by a private contractor, and that governmental immunity did not shield the contractor from liability.
• Robert Allen Brown and Lola v. Brown
  696 F.2d 246· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the tractor-bulldozer was defective and whether Caterpillar complied with government specifications, precluding summary judgment.
• Liggett Grp., Inc. v. Davis
  973 So. 2d 467· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-10-10 ·cited 33×
  Liggett Group appeals a jury verdict awarding Beverly Davis over $500,000 for lung cancer caused by Chesterfield cigarettes smoked from 1951-1974. The court affirms the verdict on the strict liability design defect claim while reversing the negligence claim based on continuing ma
• Sterling Jackson v. Coast Paint & Lacquer Co.
  499 F.2d 809· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-01 ·cited 33×
  The court held that jury instructions on the manufacturer's duty to warn and the defense of contributory negligence were erroneous because they improperly considered the employer's knowledge rather than the ultimate user's (the painter's) knowledge and the general knowledge withi
• McCONNELL v. Union Carbide Corp.
  937 So. 2d 148· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-06-28 ·cited 32×
  The McConnells sued Union Carbide for asbestosis caused by exposure to Calidria Asbestos incorporated into a joint compound product. The trial court refused to give standard products liability jury instructions on failure to warn, instead instructing the jury on an intermediary-f
• Francis and Barbara Breidor v. Sears
  722 F.2d 1134· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by erroneously excluding expert testimony regarding the probable cause of a refrigerator malfunction that allegedly caused a fire, and that this exclusion affected the plaintiffs' substantial rights.
• Harrikah I. Stanton v. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc.
  718 F.2d 553· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Astra had an obligation to file reports with the FDA and that plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of causation, but that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial limited only to damages.
• F & S Offshore, Inc. v. K.O. Steel Castings, Inc.
  662 F.2d 1104· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony regarding the shackle's twisted position did not constitute unfair surprise or reversible error, and that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's judgment.
• Manning v. Altec, Inc.
  488 F.2d 127· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury's award for the husband's injuries was within a reasonable range and remittitur was an abuse of discretion, but the wife's consortium award was not supported by sufficient evidence, justifying remittitur.
• Samuel Friedland Fam. Enters. v. Amoroso
  630 So. 2d 1067· Fla.· 1994-01-27 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the doctrine of strict liability for defective products extends to commercial lease transactions, establishing that commercial lessors engaged in the business of leasing can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products they
• High v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  610 So. 2d 1259· Fla.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that while strict liability under product defect doctrine does not apply to injuries sustained during the dismantling of transformers, a question of fact remains regarding whether the manufacturer Westinghouse was negligent in failing to timely warn
• Adobe Bldg. Ctrs., Inc. v. Reynolds
  403 So. 2d 1033· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-08-26 ·cited 30×
  A retail or wholesale seller may be held strictly liable in tort for property damage caused to one who purchases the product and prepares it for use by an ultimate consumer, even if the purchaser is a commercial entity that mixes the product with other substances and resells the
• Olaf Nielson v. Armstrong Rubber Co.
  570 F.2d 272· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an amendment to add a strict products liability claim, admitting expert testimony, or denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
• Melia v. Ford Motor Co.
  534 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-20 ·cited 30×
  A manufacturer should not be held liable when its product's design meets industry standards and does not present an unreasonable risk of harm.
• Hawley K. Challoner v. DAY & Zimmermann, Inc.
  512 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that Texas substantive law, including strict liability principles, was correctly applied to a case involving a defective artillery shell manufactured in Texas, despite the explosion occurring in Cambodia.
• Reeves v. Power Tools, Inc.
  474 F.2d 375· 6th Cir.· 1973-02-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a jury could find that Power Tools was liable for failing to discover defects in a loaned tool and for failing to pass on manufacturer warnings, and that the user's actions did not necessarily constitute an independent intervening cause. The court affirmed the
• Alberta Migues v. Fibreboard Corp.
  662 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the prior case of Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation did not establish as a matter of law that all asbestos products are unreasonably dangerous, and therefore the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment on that issue based on star
• Mrs. Ivy L. Gordon v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works
  574 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the manufacturer's failure to provide adequate warnings directly to press operators, despite knowing the machine's dangerous propensity for unexpected cycling, constituted a breach of duty, and this failure was a proximate cause of the injury.
• Brocklesby v. United States
  767 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an indemnity agreement was admissible to show the relationship between parties and impeach witnesses, and that a chart manufacturer could be held strictly liable for defects in its product even if the defect originated from a government-supplied procedure.
• Grover Sterling Martin and Cleo Alean Martin v. Unit RIG & Equip. Co., Inc.
  715 F.2d 1434· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of products liability, including evidence of a defect and causation.
• Seese v. Volkswagenwerk A. G.
  648 F.2d 833· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that North Carolina law does not recognize strict liability in tort for product defects, but does allow recovery for enhanced injuries under a crashworthiness theory. The exclusion of seat belt evidence was proper.
• Fabian v. E. W. Bliss Co.
  582 F.2d 1257· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the manufacturer's duty of reasonable care in design and the principles of strict product liability, and that the trial court did not err in refusing a directed verdict.
• Fernon D. Marshall v. Ford Motor Co.
  446 F.2d 712· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery rulings, witness admissibility, or jury instructions, and that the jury's verdict for the defendant was supported.
• Sowell v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  888 F.2d 802· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-20 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the corporate defendants, and that the United States should be substituted for the individual defendant Harrison. The jury verdict against the corporate defendants is reinstated, and
• Gracyalny v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  723 F.2d 1311· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the adequacy of the manufacturer's warning and the issue of superseding cause are questions of fact for the jury, not appropriate for summary judgment.
• Randall v. Warnaco, Inc.
  677 F.2d 1226· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 26×
  The trial court did not err in refusing to submit the appellant's negligence claim to the jury because it was encompassed by the strict liability theory presented.
• Wyman W. Cole v. Elliott Equip. Corp.
  653 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the agreement, though labeled a lease, was a financing arrangement, and therefore § 402A of the Restatement of Torts was not applicable to the financier.
• Collins v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
  558 F.2d 908· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding experimental test results or in instructing the jury on assumption of risk, as the plaintiff's own actions in overinflating the tire caused his injury.
• Hagans v. Oliver Mach. Co.
  576 F.2d 97· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the plaintiff's claims of strict liability and negligence, as the saw was not unreasonably dangerous and the plaintiff was aware of the risks.
• Calhoun v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  738 F.2d 126· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause between the alleged brake defect and the accident, thus the jury verdict was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Mercer v. Long MFG. N.C., Inc.
  665 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury's answers to special interrogatories regarding breach of warranty and DTPA violation were irreconcilable, requiring a new trial on those issues. The court also found the damage instruction for strict liability to be erroneous, requiring a new trial on
• TWO Rivers Co. v. Curtiss Breeding Serv.
  624 F.2d 1242· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 24×
  The court should allow products liability recovery for damages resulting from defective semen that caused stillborn calves and loss of value in other calves.
• Am. Aerial Lift, Inc. v. Perez
  629 So. 2d 169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-10-05 ·cited 23×
  American Aerial Lift, a commercial lessor of equipment, appeals a jury verdict finding it strictly liable for injuries caused by a defectively designed scissors-lift. The court affirms strict liability for commercial lessors of defective products but reverses for a new trial on l
• Westerman v. Sears
  577 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while Texas law applied to the strict liability claim and Florida law to the breach of warranty claim, damages could be awarded under both, but not duplicated. A plaintiff cannot appeal a remittitur order they have accepted.
• Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  650 So. 2d 671· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-02-15 ·cited 22×
  Miller appeals a directed verdict entered after a jury verdict in her favor in a spoliation of evidence case against her auto insurer. The court affirms, holding that Miller was required to pursue her underlying products liability claim against the manufacturer prior to or simult
• Plummer v. Lederle Labs.
  819 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the manufacturer's warnings were adequate as a matter of law and that the plaintiff failed to prove proximate causation, vacating the judgment for the plaintiff.
• Affiliates FOR Evaluation & Therapy, Inc. v. Viasyn Corp.
  500 So. 2d 688· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-01-06 ·cited 22×
  Affiliates for Evaluation and Therapy sued computer manufacturer Viasyn for negligence and breach of implied warranty after purchasing a defective CompuPro computer that suffered mechanical breakdowns. The court affirmed dismissal of all claims, holding that purely economic losse
• Powell v. J.T. Posey Co.
  766 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the existence of a warning would have caused her to act differently, thus the lack of warning was not the cause-in-fact of her injuries.
• Cedars OF Lebanon Hosp. Corp. v. European X-Ray Distribs. OF Am., Inc.
  444 So. 2d 1068· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-01-24 ·cited 22×
  Cedars of Lebanon Hospital purchased defective x-ray equipment and sued the Swedish manufacturer Saab-Scania for breach of warranty and strict liability despite lack of privity. The court affirmed dismissal of the strict liability claim but reversed dismissal of the warranty clai
• Brewer v. Jeep Corp.
  724 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on breach of warranty was harmless error, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a film without its accompanying report.
• Barris v. Bob's Drag Chutes & Safety Equip., Inc.
  685 F.2d 94· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the crashworthiness doctrine and should have applied the strict products liability standard of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
• Vargus v. Pitman Mfg. Co. V. Henkels & McCoy, Inc
  675 F.2d 73· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-30 ·cited 22×
  A Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion joined by fewer than a majority of justices is not binding precedent, even if it suggests a change in law.