Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 402(A)

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

• James v. Bell Helicopter Co.
  715 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that damages solely to the product itself are not recoverable in a products liability action under Texas law, but may be recoverable under Illinois law if the damage constitutes 'physical damage' rather than economic loss. The court also held that the appellant fai
• Commonwealth OF Pa. v. Gen. Pub. Utils. Corp.
  710 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims for reduced tax revenue and nuisance were properly dismissed, but other damage claims require further factual development and are remanded.
• Perez v. Nat'l Presto Indus., Inc.
  431 So. 2d 667· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-03 ·cited 10×
  A manufacturer is not liable for a product defect caused by normal wear and tear or lack of maintenance, especially when the need for maintenance is obvious.
• Merriweather v. E. W. Bliss Co.
  636 F.2d 42· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 10×
  A jury instruction on the substantial change defense in a products liability case must include the concept of reasonable foreseeability, as omitting it is inconsistent with Pennsylvania law and the manufacturer's role as a guarantor of product safety.
• Ildefonso Martinez and Nancy Martinez v. Clark Equip. Co. & W. E. Johnson Equip. Co.
  382 So. 2d 878· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-04-29 ·cited 10×
  Martinez sued Clark Equipment Company for strict liability and negligent design of a forklift, and W.E. Johnson Equipment Company for negligent repair. The trial court directed a verdict for the manufacturer on the strict liability count. The appellate court reversed the directed
• Arlin Perez Quichocho and Antonio Balajadia Quichocho v. Kelvinator Corp. & M. V. Pangelinan Enters.
  546 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendants was supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Ibrahim K. Khoder v. AMF, Inc.
  539 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-04 ·cited 10×
  Contributory negligence is not a permissible defense to a strict liability claim under Louisiana law.
• Orfield v. Int'l Harvester Co. & Power Equip. Co.
  535 F.2d 959· 6th Cir.· 1976-05-07 ·cited 10×
  A plaintiff's knowledge and contemplation of a product's danger, even if it lacks a safety feature, precludes recovery under strict liability if the danger is not beyond that contemplated by an experienced user.
• Denny v. Seaboard Lacquer, Inc.
  487 F.2d 485· 4th Cir.· 1973-11-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that ordinary negligence can support a wrongful death action under Alabama law, and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of wanton conduct.
• Colosimo v. The MAY Dep't Store Co.
  466 F.2d 1234· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-27 ·cited 10×
  Plaintiff cannot recover because his voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defense under Pennsylvania law, even if the jury found otherwise.
• Doss v. Apache Powder Co.
  430 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on an Arizona statute regarding dynamite age, as Texas law governed the sale in Texas and did not incorporate that foreign statute. The court also found errors in jury instructions regarding the duty to warn and th
• Nicholas Plaza v. Fisher Dev., Inc.
  971 So. 2d 918· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-12-19 ·cited 9×
  Nicholas Plaza appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of Fisher Development, a general contractor, on his strict liability and negligence claims arising from an injury caused by a conveyor system at a Pottery Barn store. The court affirmed, holding that the conveyor is a
• Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2008-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal jurisdiction and that the Engle Phase I findings can only have issue preclusive effect, not claim preclusive effect, because they did not establish liability.
• Rivera v. Baby Trend, Inc.
  914 So. 2d 1102· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-11-30 ·cited 8×
  Possession of a product is not a prerequisite for imposing strict liability on a distributor who places a defective product into the stream of commerce.
• STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS-CIVIL CASES (NO. 02-2)
  872 So. 2d 893· Fla.· 2004-04-01 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to the Standard Jury Instructions for Civil Cases (No. 02-2) relating to product liability instructions. The amendments clarify and restructure instructions on manufacturing defects and design defects, add cautionary notes about poten
• Nielsen v. George Diamond Vogel Paint Co.
  892 F.2d 1450· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government contractor defense under Idaho law barred strict liability claims for design defects, but reversed summary judgment on the failure to warn claim, finding triable issues of fact.
• Trevino v. Yamaha Motor Corp.
  882 F.2d 182· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 8×
• McDONALD v. Sandvik Process Sys., Inc.
  870 F.2d 389· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the danger presented by the machine's design was not open and obvious as a matter of law, and that the plaintiff's claims of incurred risk and defective condition were properly submitted to the jury.
• McLAUGHLIN v. The Fellows Gear Shaper Co. Appeal of Hermann Pfauter
  786 F.2d 592· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in resubmitting inconsistent jury interrogatories and in setting aside the jury's finding of assumption of the risk, as the evidence did not support it.
• Minichello v. U.S. Indus., Inc.
  756 F.2d 26· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting evidence of OSHA standards, which are not intended to affect civil liability and apply only to employers, was prejudicial error in a product liability case.
• E. River S.S. Corp. v. Delaval Turbine, Inc.
  752 F.2d 903· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Pennsylvania Glass Sand standard applies in strict products liability actions in admiralty for economic loss, and that the grant of summary judgment for the defendant on counts II, III, and V was affirmed.
• Verlin G. Unthank v. United States
  732 F.2d 1517· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the United States is liable for the plaintiff's transverse myelitis resulting from the swine flu vaccine, based on theories of inadequate informed consent and strict liability.
• Leadfree Enters., Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.
  711 F.2d 805· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 8×
  Wisconsin tort law does not allow recovery for purely economic losses resulting from a bridge closure due to allegedly defective construction, absent physical injury or damage to property.
• Purvis v. Consol. Energy Prods. Co.
  674 F.2d 217· 4th Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment holding the defendant liable to the plaintiff under South Carolina's strict products liability statute.
• French v. Grove Mfg. Co.
  656 F.2d 295· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiff had the burden of proving the feasibility of an alternative safer design and that the plaintiff's employment status was irrelevant to his negligence claim against the employer.
• Savage v. Jacobsen Mfg. Co.
  396 So. 2d 731· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-03-13 ·cited 8×
  Sharon Savage appeals a summary judgment in favor of Jacobsen Manufacturing Company after she slipped and fell dismounting from a lawn mower tractor. The court affirmed, holding that the absence of a nonskid surface on the platform did not constitute a product defect under strict
• Burks v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  633 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that giving a jury instruction to balance the utility of a product's design against the risk of harm was proper, even when the defendant had stipulated to the feasibility of a safer alternative design.
• Bonita Louise Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc.
  370 So. 2d 68· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-04-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the crashworthiness doctrine, previously applied only to automobile manufacturers, extends to motorcycle manufacturers. The court also held that recovery for design defects that increase collision injuries may be based on negligence, strict liability, or breac
• Stevens v. Kanematsu-Gosho Co., Inc.
  494 F.2d 367· 1st Cir.· 1974-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury, as New Hampshire law permits this defense in strict liability cases.
• Burchill v. Kearney-National Corp., Inc.
  468 F.2d 384· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in granting a directed verdict by improperly weighing the evidence and usurping the jury's function.
• Brown v. R. D. Werner Co., Inc.
  428 F.2d 375· 1st Cir.· 1970-06-16 ·cited 8×
  A defendant may defensively use a prior judgment against a plaintiff who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior action, even if the defendant was not a party to that action.
• Builders Shoring & Scaffolding Equip. Co., Inc. v. Schmidt
  411 So. 2d 1004· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-31 ·cited 7×
  Schmidt was injured when a scaffolding cross brace detached while he leaned on it. He sued both the manufacturer (Bil-Jax) and the lessor (Builders) for negligence and strict liability. The court reversed the judgment for Schmidt against Builders on the strict liability claim, fi
• Daniels v. McKAY Mach. Co. & Wean United, Inc.
  607 F.2d 771· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 7×
  A state court's denial of summary judgment, being an interlocutory order, is not the law of the case for a federal court after removal, and strict products liability does not apply to an isolated sale or lease of equipment by a party not in the business of selling such equipment.
• Leila Malave-Felix v. Volvo CAR Corp.
  946 F.2d 967· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause for her injuries, and that the trial judge's conduct did not demonstrate bias.
• High v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  559 So. 2d 227· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-12 ·cited 6×
  Willie High sued Westinghouse for injuries allegedly caused by PCB exposure while dismantling and recycling used transformers that Westinghouse had originally manufactured and sold to Florida Power & Light. The trial court granted Westinghouse summary judgment, and the appellate
• James v. Nolan
  871 F.2d 76· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs waived their right to seek remand by actively participating in federal litigation for two years, and that summary judgment was properly granted to defendants who were not engaged in the business of selling the product.
• Marchant v. The Dayton Tire & Rubber Co.
  836 F.2d 695· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff on breach of warranty claims (design defect and failure to warn) should be reinstated, but the damages award was excessive and subject to a remittitur.
• HON v. Stroh Brewery Co.
  835 F.2d 510· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 6×
  A manufacturer may be strictly liable for failing to warn of latent dangers associated with its product, even if the product is an alcoholic beverage, if the consumer did not know or could not reasonably have known of the specific risk.
• Duford v. Sears
  833 F.2d 407· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a directed verdict was improperly granted on claims of strict liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, as there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the product's warnings inadequate or its design defective. The court affirmed the dir
• Overpeck v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.
  823 F.2d 751· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish causation for their failure to warn claim, as the evidence did not show that a warning would have altered the plaintiff's behavior.
• Dicie Ellen Hibley Swayze v. McNEIL Labs., Inc.
  807 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 6×
  A drug manufacturer's duty to warn for a prescription drug generally extends only to medical practitioners, not consumers, even if supervision is lacking, unless the physician is absent.
• Juarez v. United Farm Tools, Inc.
  798 F.2d 1341· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant manufacturer acted with wanton and reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights, as required for punitive damages under Colorado law.
• Lane M. McGONIGAL v. Gearhart Indus., Inc.
  788 F.2d 321· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs waived their strict product liability claim by agreeing to proceed solely on a negligence theory after settling with the manufacturer, but that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict on the negligence claim, as the doctrine of r
• Kandis Renae Miller v. Utica Mill Specialty Mach. Co.
  731 F.2d 305· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, correctly stated Tennessee law regarding product defectiveness and assumption of risk, and that the plaintiff's requested instruction on the dangerous workplace doctrine was properly rejected.
• Coriner Whitehead v. ST. JOE Lead Co., Inc.
  729 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 6×
  Suppliers of lead may be held liable under New Jersey law for failure to warn employees of industrial users of dangers associated with lead contamination, as genuine issues of material fact exist regarding strict liability and negligence claims.
• Hardin v. Montgomery Elevator Co.
  435 So. 2d 331· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-07-22 ·cited 6×
  Paula Hardin appeals the dismissal of her strict products liability claim against Montgomery Elevator Company for injuries caused by a defective elevator. The court holds that a manufacturer's knowledge that a product will undergo inspection before reaching the ultimate user does
• Skill v. G. B. Martinez, M.D.
  677 F.2d 368· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an unrecorded ex parte communication with the jury after deliberations have begun is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61, requiring disregard of errors not affecting substantial rights.
• Harris v. Karri-On Campers, Inc.
  640 F.2d 65· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the 'unreasonably dangerous' standard for strict liability and in refusing to instruct the jury on the adequacy of warnings. The court also found insufficient evidence to instruct the jury on assumption of risk.
• Sochanski v. Sears
  621 F.2d 67· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff met the burden of proof under Pennsylvania law for strict product liability, and the district court erred in granting judgment n.o.v.
• Hethcoat v. Chevron OIL Co.
  364 So. 2d 1243· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-10-30 ·cited 6×
  A manufacturer owes no duty to warn of the danger of applying an acetylene torch to a closed tank containing petroleum residues, where such danger is obvious to a skilled worker like a welder. The mere fact that a machine can cause injury does not render the design defective.