Substantial Change In Condition

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

• The Lackawanna Leather Co. v. Martin & Stewart, Ltd.
  730 F.2d 1197· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court's jury instructions were adequate, affirming the judgment.
• Nattassia Matin v. Hill
  801 So. 2d 1003· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of a mother's motion to dissolve an ex parte child pick-up order, holding that the mother was denied due process because the hearing on the motion to dissolve was not truly evidentiary and the father failed to pr
• Holloway v. J. B. Sys.
  609 F.2d 1069· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that while the admission of industry custom testimony was inappropriate in a strict liability case, it did not constitute reversible error, and the jury instructions on superseding causation were proper.
• 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.
• Boston v. Budget Luxury Inns
  474 So. 2d 355· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-08-08 ·cited 12×
  Ethel Boston appealed the denial of her workers' compensation claim for further medical treatment on res judicata grounds. The court reversed, holding that res judicata did not apply because the claims involved different treatments and did not constitute modification of prior ord
• Jesus Garcia Verge & the Comm'r of Labor of the Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Ford Motor Co.
  581 F.2d 384· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-08 ·cited 12×
  Ford Motor Company is not liable for a design defect in a garbage truck where the defect arose from modifications made by another company, as Ford did not manufacture the final product and lacked the expertise and practicality to install the safety device.
• Capasso v. Minster Mach. Co., Inc.
  532 F.2d 952· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the issues of whether the press was defective when sold and whether Westinghouse's modifications constituted a superseding cause were for the jury to decide.
• Kendall v. Kendall
  832 So. 2d 878· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-12-11 ·cited 11×
  Susan Kendall appeals an order granting her former husband's emergency motion for temporary modification of custody of their daughter. The trial court modified custody based on perceived instability in the mother's living situation and life circumstances, but the appellate court
• 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
• Hanlon v. Cyril Bath Co.
  541 F.2d 343· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the substitution of a significantly different and more sensitive starting mechanism constituted a substantial change to the product, precluding strict liability under Section 402A.
• Bishop v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  814 F.2d 437· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's design defect theory and failure to warn claim presented jury questions and should not have been directed against them.
• Haddix v. Emret
  992 So. 2d 883· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-10-24 ·cited 4×
  Father Jeremy Haddix appealed the denial of his emergency motion for temporary change of custody based on the mother's drug use. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, but the appellate court found this constituted an abuse of discretion and reversed, holding that a
• Glass v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
  789 F.2d 612· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendant was proper because the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a defect attributable to the manufacturer, as the product had been substantially altered after leaving the manufacturer's control.
• Saupitty v. Yazoo Mfg. Co., Inc.
  726 F.2d 657· 10th Cir.· 1984-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's modifications to the mower constituted a material alteration, precluding strict liability, and that there was no evidence to support punitive damages.
• Estol Pike v. Benchmaster Mfg. Co.
  696 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's findings of an unreasonably dangerous product and no substantial change in condition were supported by sufficient evidence, making the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict improper.
• Phillips v. Wintter
  835 So. 2d 1283· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-02-19 ·cited 1×
  A mother appeals a trial court's order granting the father exclusive temporary custody of their minor child based on an ex parte motion. The appellate court reversed, finding no true emergency existed and the evidence was insufficient to support the temporary custody modification
• Roque v. Paskow
  693 So. 2d 999· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-01-31 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order changing temporary primary residential custody from the mother to the father, holding that the mother was denied due process because she was not adequately noticed of the emergency custody motion and was n
• 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.
• Brush v. Brush
  414 So. 2d 37· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-05-25
  The court reversed a summary judgment denying a husband's petition to modify child custody, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding substantial changes in circumstances and the child's best interests precluded summary disposition.