Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 402(A)

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

• Ford Motor Co. v. Hill
  381 So. 2d 249· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-12-28 ·cited 15×
  Ford Motor Company appeals a products liability verdict in a case involving injuries from a "second collision" defect in a truck design. The court affirms the jury verdict based on strict liability, while certifying to the Florida Supreme Court a question about whether common law
• Delaney v. Towmotor Corp.
  339 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1964-12-03 ·cited 15×
  A manufacturer's strict liability extends to a defective product placed in the stream of commerce, even if not sold to the injured party.
• Linegar v. Armour OF Am., Inc.
  909 F.2d 1150· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the bullet-resistant vest was defectively designed or unreasonably dangerous.
• Colonial Park Country Club v. ARC
  746 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that economic losses are not recoverable in a products liability case under New Mexico law, and the defendant did not waive this defense.
• Petty v. United States
  740 F.2d 1428· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 14×
  The warning provided before the swine flu vaccination was adequate, and therefore the United States is not liable under negligence or strict liability theories.
• Mrs. Emma Jean Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  737 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The dissent argues that Louisiana law requires foreseeability of harm for a failure-to-warn claim in products liability, and imposing liability for unforeseeable dangers violates due process and public policy.
• Hartman v. Opelika Mach. & Welding Co. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  414 So. 2d 1105· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-05-28 ·cited 14×
  In this products liability case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict on strict liability, holding that a manufacturer remains subject to strict liability even when producing a product for a single purchaser using that purchaser's design specifications
• McCUNE v. F. Alioto Fish Co.
  597 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a settlement agreement mooted the plaintiff's claim against the shipowner, and that the plaintiff's claim against the manufacturer was barred by laches due to inexcusable delay and prejudice. The court also held that the shipowner's indemnity claim against the
• DeSANTIS v. Parker Feeders, Inc.
  547 F.2d 357· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a manufacturer of component parts for a cattle feeder could be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defect in the assembled product, even if the product was not used for its intended purpose, if the defect was foreseeable.
• Patch v. The Stanley Works (Stanley Chem. Co. Division) & Thomas Keller
  448 F.2d 483· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied New Hampshire law regarding strict liability and the wrongful death damage limitation, and also correctly awarded pre-judgment interest from the date the complaints were filed.
• Colville v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC
  565 F. Supp. 2d 1314· N.D. Fla.· 2008-07-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the manufacturer's warnings regarding Depo-Provera were adequate as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and actual injury.
• Elliott v. Brunswick Corp.
  903 F.2d 1505· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the manufacturer did not produce a defective product because the danger of an unguarded propeller was obvious to ordinary consumers and no safe, practical alternative design for a propeller guard existed at the time of manufacture.
• Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment
  806 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the lawn mower was defective and that the defect caused the plaintiff's injury.
• Ocean Barge Transp. Co. v. Hess OIL Virgin Islands Corp. Mintec/International
  726 F.2d 121· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in inferring a product defect solely from the fact of bolt failure without requiring the plaintiff to negate other reasonable explanations for the failure, such as operator negligence.
• Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. v. Greenfield
  417 So. 2d 306· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-07-27 ·cited 13×
  Fisherman's Paradise appealed a summary judgment entered against it for injuries caused by a negligently installed refrigerator on a customer's boat. The court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Fisherman's Paradise could be liable for
• Dorothy v. Summers
  466 F.2d 42· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-18 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge believes Oregon law, not Washington law, should apply to the limitation of liability question.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin
  97 So. 3d 886· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-08-22 ·cited 12×
  Union Carbide appealed a $6.6 million judgment for asbestos-related injuries, arguing the trial court erred by applying the Second Restatement of Torts instead of the Third Restatement, denying its motion for directed verdict on the design defect claim, and providing misleading j
• Humphreys v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  839 F. Supp. 822· N.D. Fla.· 1993-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence of a defect, substantial change, or causation for their strict liability and negligence claims.
• Lloyd v. John Deere Co.
  922 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly granted a directed verdict because no reasonable jury could find the tractor defective or that the manufacturer failed to warn, as the danger was open and obvious to an experienced operator.
• Allen v. Chance Mfg. Co., Inc.
  873 F.2d 465· 1st Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the 'sole proximate cause' defense, which could have included the employer's negligence, and by preventing argument on this issue. This error may have affected the jury's verdict, necessitating a new
• Donahue v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  866 F.2d 1008· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The majority erred by not submitting the bulk supplier/learned intermediary doctrine to the jury, as Phillips fulfilled its duty by supplying adequate information to the intermediary.
• Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  849 F.2d 230· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a state law failure to warn claim regarding cigarettes is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, and affirmed the directed verdict on the product liability claim because cigarettes are not unreasonably dangerous given widespread publi
• Adams v. Fuqua Indus., Inc.
  820 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding Fuqua's rebuttal evidence regarding the feasibility of safety features, materially prejudicing Fuqua's defense.
• Visnoski v. J.C. Penney Co.
  477 So. 2d 29· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-10-16 ·cited 12×
  Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of strict liability claim against retailer J.C. Penney, holding that strict liability in tort applies to non-manufacturing sellers of allegedly defective products.
• Zyferman v. Taylor
  444 So. 2d 1088· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-01-25 ·cited 12×
  Injured plaintiff appealed from directed verdict in strict product liability case involving an exploding boiler. The court reversed, holding that a plaintiff need not prove normal use and proper maintenance of a product from sale to malfunction to establish a prima facie strict l
• Sours v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  717 F.2d 1511· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on negligence, product defect, and lack of substantial modification, and that the exclusion of seat belt evidence was harmless error.
• Lewis v. Timco, Inc.
  697 F.2d 1252· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 12×
• Sochanski v. Sears
  689 F.2d 45· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-21 ·cited 12×
  A pro rata release in favor of a primary tortfeasor discharges a secondarily liable party, but only if no other primary tortfeasor remains implicated. The case is remanded to determine if the wheel was defective and, if so, who manufactured it, as this impacts the release's effec
• Hagan v. EZ Mfg. Co.
  674 F.2d 1047· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to raise a jury question regarding whether the machinery was unreasonably dangerous due to a lack of a safety device.
• Maxwell Young v. Up-Right Scaffolds, Inc.
  637 F.2d 810· D.C. Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that District of Columbia courts would recognize strict liability claims for product defects, and the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on this doctrine and the inapplicability of contributory negligence as a defense.
• Hansen v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  578 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 12×
  A federal district court in a diversity case must instruct the jury on both negligence and strict liability theories in a products liability case if there is sufficient evidence to support negligence, as required by Wisconsin law.
• Smith v. Nick's Catering Serv.
  549 F.2d 1194· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that under Missouri law, a commercial lessor of a truck is not subject to strict liability for a defect unless the lessor is a mass lessor akin to a manufacturer or retailer.
• Leda Mae Symons v. Mueller Co.
  526 F.2d 13· 10th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 12×
  A manufacturer held liable under strict liability theory is considered in pari delicto with a party whose active negligence contributed to the injury, and thus is not entitled to indemnity from that party.
• Forsyth v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  520 F.2d 608· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-26 ·cited 12×
• Hales v. Green Colonial, Inc.
  490 F.2d 1015· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented no evidence of a defect in the heater when it left the factory, thus no liability could be assessed against the manufacturer or suppliers.
• ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Armco Steel Corp. & Pullman Inc.
  490 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the wheel was defective or unreasonably dangerous under strict liability, and that Pullman was entitled to coverage under Armco's insurance policy because its modifications did not cause the accident.
• A. L. Messick and wife v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  460 F.2d 485· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 12×
• Wilkes Wirth v. Clark Equip. Co.
  457 F.2d 1262· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the issue of strict liability for a defective product should have been submitted to the jury, even if the plaintiff was a bystander and the equipment was custom-built.
• Hobart Corp. v. Siegle
  600 So. 2d 503· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-06-09 ·cited 11×
  Hobart Corporation appeals a jury verdict in a products liability action where a minor suffered hand injuries from a commercial food grinder. The Third District affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or jury instruc
• Petree v. Power
  887 F.2d 34· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of a subsequent warning decal under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, as it was admissible for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 407's exception.
• Vickers v. Chiles Drilling Co.
  822 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the air compressor was defectively designed because the manufacturer failed to provide notice of its obscure internal access, rendering it unreasonably dangerous for foreseeable uses. The court reversed the district court's finding of no defect and remanded fo
• Brooks v. Medtronic, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1227· 4th Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 11×
  A manufacturer of a medical device like a pacemaker has a duty to warn physicians, who act as learned intermediaries, rather than the consumer directly, about potential risks.
• Garrison v. Heublein, Inc.
  673 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-17 ·cited 11×
  A manufacturer has no duty to warn consumers of the commonly known dangers associated with alcoholic beverages, as such dangers are not considered unreasonably dangerous.
• Porter v. Robert Kent Rosenberg, M.D.
  650 So. 2d 79· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-01-04 ·cited 10×
  Kay Porter appealed the dismissal of her strict liability claim against her plastic surgeon, Dr. Rosenberg, who implanted a defective breast implant. The court held that strict liability does not apply to physicians who supply medical products incidental to the provision of medic
• Hill v. Searle Labs.
  884 F.2d 1064· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to show the device was defective or that warnings were inadequate, and therefore summary judgment for the defendant should be affirmed.
• Burnette v. DOW Chem. Co.
  849 F.2d 1269· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that summary judgment for Nalco and Independent was correctly granted because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding causation, but summary judgment for Dow was improperly granted due to genuine issues of material fact concerning the adequacy of its
• Petree v. Power
  831 F.2d 1191· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on the failure to warn claim, as sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find the product defective due to lack of an adequate warning. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend the
• Chaulk v. Volkswagen OF Am., Inc.
  808 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district judge was not clearly wrong in directing a verdict for Volkswagen on the negligence claim, as there was no credible evidence of negligence.
• Hylton v. John Deere Co. & Deere & Co.
  802 F.2d 1011· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the combine was not unreasonably dangerous was not clearly erroneous and that the district court correctly applied Missouri law regarding strict products liability in a design defect case.
• Delvaux v. Ford Motor Co.
  764 F.2d 469· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a convertible automobile is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law due to its design, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request to interview jurors.