HomeMy WebLinkAbout0195 . #
;
~
"l~ic~ con.plaint allegc: s that on ~1ay 2U, 1968~ Sunrise sent a ;
1968 Ford truck tu 'Che Goaciyear Store in ~~t. Piercc~, Florida, to have
the tir~s changai--specifically to have 900 x 20 tires inounct'd on the
RH-S wheels and rims with which the Ford truck was equipped. Plain-
tiffs. employees of The Goodyear Store, procee~ic~d to mount 900 x 20
f
tires on the RH wheels and rims as requested by Sunrise. Shortly. t
;
;
aft~r one of the ~ires was moanted, the ritn pulled apart, exploded, !
,
~
.
and came off the wheel with great force, seriously injuring plaintiffs. ;
~
lt is alleged that the wheel and rim assembly which i.njured plaintiffs ~
~
~
was designeci and assembled by Firestone, sold to Ford, and incor- '
~
porated by Ford ir.to the 1968 For~ truck on ~~~ni?ch plaintiffs were ~
~
working. "I'he comple~zd truck, including the offendin~ wheel and i-im, ~ ~
?vere sold by Ford as its own product. i
5
~:.ounts ore, t~vc and fi~7e tic ere :'rrected against Ford and ~
;
~
F1?"E.StOile; c;cw~,~_s *.hrez and fo'ar ~1~~~re di.recteci against Sum•ise. '
. ~
-i hc~ tr~a? ~ourt st~staine:~ cc~un« on;~ a~d t:vo ot the c;omplaint ~
~
~
~z~ a~ai:~st t-ire~tor:e (except tt~at reierences CO SCi'1CC I23blllry in count
F
one ~ver~ stricker,), :~ut dfsmissed 1_hese counts against rord. ~ In so
rttling the t1-ial courr t~ilc~ to follow the prin: i~le i~ow cstablished in
Fiorida law tl:at an ~sserr.~ler of a prc~d~ct ~vhi:.i-j includes a compoitent
,
; part manufactui~ed i~y anot~~er ~=.'i~~ ~etl~ the c~mplet~.~ci p: c~~c* as iEs
~
` own an~ therebi~ represents ~o tl~e public tiiat it is Lhe manufacturer is
{ ;
~ cun~idered ~thc man;:factu, er of rhe componenc part f~r purpases of ~
~ ~
~ liabi~ity for personal in;ui-y resulting from use of thc component part.i
~ ~
€ Appii~acion of this prirciple in li~ht of the allegatior.s in the complaint ~
i
{
~ that the wheel and rim ~vhich caus~ plaintiffs` injuries were desigrteci
E
i
' 1. I lolmar v. ~~ord :vlotor Co. , 239 So. 2d 40 (rla. App. 1970); King v.
f I3ouglas .~ircraft Co. , 159 So. 2d 108 (Fla. App. 1964); Restatement,
` Z~orf s. ~ 4i30.
~
x '2-
4
~ •
` BOOK~~9 PAGE
~
a
K
t
,
3 ~
~
k
p" , - :
F~'~.
F" - ~ '~"~T~.'9
~~~~.r=' r_.vu.~ W, . _ . . . . ~ S i ~ _ ~