Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 402(A)

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

• Peck v. Ford Motor Co.
  603 F.2d 1240· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the manufacturer of a defective truck was not liable for injuries sustained by a plaintiff who collided with the truck hours after it broke down, as the defect was not the proximate cause of the injury due to intervening factors and lack of foreseeability.
• Brown v. Link Belt Corp. & FMC Corp.
  565 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding strict liability and assumption of risk, and that comparative negligence did not apply to this strict liability case under the applicable 1971 Oregon statute.
• Shuput v. Heublein Inc.
  511 F.2d 1104· 10th Cir.· 1975-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, as the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find the product unreasonably dangerous and that the plaintiff may not have assumed the risk as a matter of law.
• Henrich v. Cutler Hammer Co. & McKay Mach. Co.
  460 F.2d 1325· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury charge on assumption of risk was not reversible error, and it was proper to submit the issue to the jury.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Larkin
  225 So. 3d 886· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-06-28 ·cited 1×
  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appeals a jury verdict and final judgment in favor of the husband and daughter of the late Carole Larkin on claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal. The court affirms the jury verdict on fraudulent concealment claims
• JOY v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
  999 F.2d 549· D.C. Cir.· 1993-07-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that evidence of other SAG failures was admissible and jury instructions on product liability were proper, but reversed a damages award for loss of consortium and certified a question regarding the District of Columbia's liability for the rescue effort.
• N. Miami Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Goldberg
  520 So. 2d 650· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-02-23 ·cited 1×
  A patient injured by a defective electro-surgical grounding pad during surgery at North Miami General Hospital recovered a jury verdict under strict liability theory. The appellate court reversed, holding that hospitals are not subject to strict liability for defective medical eq
• Woodard v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2023-06-17
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of causation and reliance to survive summary judgment on most claims, denying the defendant's motion in part.
• Harrell v. BMS P'rs, LLC
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-11-02
  The appellate court reviewed a trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit based on an exculpatory clause in a motorcycle sales contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of negligence claims but reversed the dismissal of strict products liability claims, finding the clause did not appl
• Karpel v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-09-20
  The court held that Florida law does not recognize a general 'subsequent purchaser rule' barring claims, but strict liability claims are limited by the economic loss rule and caveat emptor, and nuisance and unjust enrichment claims fail.
• Hively v. Northlake Foods, Inc.
  977 F. Supp. 2d 606· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-15
• Drabik v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc.
  997 F.2d 496· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-14
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other injuries, without a sufficient showing of substantial similarity, was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
• Carley v. Wheeled Coach
  991 F.2d 1117· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-16
  The court held that the Boyle federal government contractor defense does not extend to nonmilitary government contracts, and that the Virgin Islands does not recognize a government contractor defense under its strict products liability law.
• Westchem Agric. Chems., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  990 F.2d 426· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-06
  A vehicle manufacturer has no duty to design its vehicle to protect against damage from improperly installed aftermarket equipment, nor a duty to warn of dangers arising from such improper installation.
• Leon's Bakery v. Grinnell Corp.
  990 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-31
  Contractual clauses limiting a fire alarm system manufacturer's liability are enforceable between commercial parties, even for claims of strict liability or negligence, provided the limitation is reasonable and not unconscionable.
• Glover v. The BIC Corp.
  987 F.2d 1410· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-26
  An adequate warning does not preclude strict liability for a manufacturing defect, and a manufacturer owes a duty of care to product users. Spoliation of evidence requires bad faith to warrant exclusion.
• Myron Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co. & Caterpillar Indus., Inc.
  978 F.2d 1386· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-25
  Under Mississippi products liability law, recovery against a manufacturer by an injured bystander is barred if the product defect or danger is open and obvious to an ordinary user, regardless of the bystander's actual knowledge.
• Romero v. Int'l Harvester Co.
  979 F.2d 1444· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-18
  Under Colorado law, a manufacturer has no duty to notify previous purchasers of later-developed safety devices or to retrofit non-defective products. A jury instruction that allows liability for failure to retrofit a non-defective product is erroneous.
• Williamson v. Piper Aircraft Corp. & Teledyne Cont'l Motors Aircraft Prods. Div.
  968 F.2d 380· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-29
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Parker Hannifin Corporation's post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial, and its denial of Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products' motion for prejudgment interest. The court found that Parker, as a com
• Little v. Liquid AIR Corp.
  952 F.2d 841· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-15
  The court is rehearing the case en banc to reconsider the prior panel decision.
• Habecker v. Clark Equip. Co.
  942 F.2d 210· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21
  The court held that evidence of industry knowledge regarding the desirability of a safety feature at the time of manufacture is irrelevant in a crashworthiness case, and its admission prejudiced the plaintiff's rights.
• Goldsmith v. Olon Andrews, Inc.
  941 F.2d 423· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-06
  The court held that Bell was not a seller of the helicopter design under Ohio law, and therefore could not be held liable for strict liability or negligent design.
• Wilhelm Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons
  938 F.2d 1033· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-12
  A publisher is not liable under products liability law for erroneous information contained in a book, nor does a publisher have a duty to investigate the accuracy of its published content.
• Adkins v. GAF Corp.
  923 F.2d 1225· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-23
  The court affirmed the trial court's determination of ACL's liability but vacated and remanded the damages award for further findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Ackley v. Wyeth Labs., Inc.
  919 F.2d 397· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-26
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to distinguish their case from prior Ohio Supreme Court precedent finding the Wyeth DTP vaccine to be an unavoidably unsafe product, thus affirming summary judgment for the manufacturer.
• Hutt v. Gibson Fiber Glass Prods., Inc.
  914 F.2d 790· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-19
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on the duty to warn issue regarding dual voltage systems, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the alteration defense.
• Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.
  901 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-13
  The court held that under Arizona law, a trademark licensor significantly involved in the product's design, manufacture, and sale can be held strictly liable as a manufacturer or seller.
• Florom v. Elliott Mfg.
  879 F.2d 801· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-12
  A successor corporation may be liable under strict liability for a failure to warn, even if it only acquired assets, if a continuing relationship with customers is established.
• Matthews v. Hyster Co., Inc.
  854 F.2d 1166· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-17
  A directed verdict for the defendant is proper if the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion, and here, the plaintiffs failed to prove causation for their claims.
• Anne M. Makuc v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.
  835 F.2d 389· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-17
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting hearsay testimony under the present sense impression exception, refusing a res ipsa loquitur instruction, refusing jury instructions on inferring defect from malfunction, directing a verdict on misrepresentation, denyin
• Rooney v. Fed. Press Co. & Positive Safety Mfg. Co.
  751 F.2d 140· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-17
  The majority upheld the district court's refusal to find the power press defective, reasoning that the addition of a foot pedal by the employer constituted a substantial modification insulating the manufacturer from liability.
• McELHANEY v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  739 F.2d 340· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-17
  The court held that the District Court's interpretation of South Dakota law regarding strict liability for prescription drugs was reasonable.
• Nat'l Marine Serv. Inc. v. Petroleum Serv. Corp.
  736 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16
  Assumption of the risk is not a separate defense barring recovery in maritime strict liability actions but must be analyzed under the principles of comparative fault.
• Sheldon v. W. Bend Equip. Corp.
  718 F.2d 603· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-07
  The court held that the involuntary joinder of the employer as a plaintiff was improper and not harmless error, requiring reversal.
• Daberko v. Heil Co.
  681 F.2d 445· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-30
  The court held that the trailer as originally manufactured was not unreasonably dangerous for its intended or foreseeable uses, thus defeating the plaintiff's strict liability claim.
• Hamme v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co. v. Cole Bus. Furniture
  716 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1982-04-12
  The court held that federal courts are not strictly bound by intermediate state appellate court decisions when predicting how the state's highest court would rule, especially when there is significant disagreement among lower courts or dissenting opinions.
• Firich v. The Am. Cystoscope Makers, Inc.
  635 F.2d 259· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-18
  The court held that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision declaring the exclusive jurisdiction provision of the Malpractice Act unconstitutional removes any impediment to federal court jurisdiction.
• John H. Phipps Broad. Stations, Inc. v. Int'l Harvester Co.
  45 Fla. Supp. 82· Fla. Cir. Ct.· 1976-11-15
  Phipps Broadcasting Stations sued International Harvester for damages arising from two defective pickup trucks with inadequately shielded fuel delivery systems. The court found the fuel system design constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability and imposed strict l
• Belcher v. Nev. Rock & Sand Co.
  516 F.2d 859· 9th Cir.· 1975-05-19
  The court held that strict liability in tort and breach of warranty were not applicable to an independent contractor who followed state plans for highway barricades.
• Wheeler v. Standard Tool & Mfg. Co.
  497 F.2d 897· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-20
  The court held that the trial court correctly applied Connecticut law and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A in finding the manufacturer strictly liable for a defective machine.
• Winsby v. John Oster Mfg. Co. & Gimbel Bros., Inc.
  482 F.2d 276· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-28
  A district court rule reducing the size of civil juries from twelve to six is permissible under Supreme Court precedent.
• Benson v. Beloit Corp.
  443 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-04
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in using the phrase 'contributory negligence' in jury instructions when it was employed in the context of assumption of risk, which is a valid defense to strict liability.