HomeMy WebLinkAbout0196 ~
And manufactui-~~d b}~ rii•c~[one anc~ inc.c~rporated by I~ord into the 1968 ;
~
Ford truck which Ford sold as its own produc:t would require ~ similar . ~
4
1
i
ruling as to the sufficiency of the oompalainr againsr each of these `
~
defendants. :
,
5
e
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing ~
each of the five cc~unts of the complaint. We will consider each count~ #
,
. ~
sepo ra tety. ~
In count one plaintiffs see4: to rewver on the conventional
thc~ry of breach of implied warranty2 as well as the theory of strict ~
t sufficient under an im li~d warrant~ ~
liability. We tind the coun p ~
,
th~~ory, lt is alleged in this count t1:at by reasun of improper design ;
~
or manufacn:re by defendanrs Ford and Firestone the wheei and rim
assembly was not safe for its intend~d use and inherently dangerous
te pcrsor.s in the ~icinity of its probably vse. The design aefects
relied on are sp~cified in the plea~ing; and causal connection between ;
_
the spe~ified design defects and the expiosi~n of the rim off the i
~ ~
v~~~ee! resu'ting in plaintiffs' injury is asserted. ?
,
i
We find that the allegations of count or~e set forth a
sufficient ~laim for relief for breach of itn~lied warran[y within the rule
contained in the R~statement of Tc~rts w~hich has been approved in
i
,
~
~ 2. Appellee Ford contends that Florida cases on implied warranty
; prior to adoption of the omnibus Lniform Cvmmercial Code which be- ~
~ came effective )anuary 1. 1967, are no longer relevant since the ~
i C.`niform Commercial Code pre-empted this area where applicable. :
~ We disagree with this contention an~ approve the view expressed in =
~ ~,`~e case of Ford Motor Co. v, Pithnan, 227 So. 2d 24~ (Fla. App. 1969),
~ that the implied warranty doctrine developed in Florida prior to
~ adopticn of the Unif.orm Commercial Code is still viabie.
z
r _
~
;
~ . "3 ~ -
~ .
~
~ .
6 .
h
t
¢ ~
> .
S •
z
i
~
~
t
eoaK ~9 PacE 1~ '
~ ~
~ .
~ ~
~
~ - - ~
~
_ ~ v.
. .