HomeMy WebLinkAbout0197 Florida, 3
Appellees contend that plaintiffs are barred from
recovering fro~n Ford and Firestone under the theory of implied warranty
by reason of lack of privity. This contention is without merit.
Former requirements of privity in an action by a foreseeable user of a
product agalnst the manufacturer charging breach of implied
v~~arranty have been abrogated in Florida, 4 We find that oount one
alleges ultimate facts which are sufficient for a cause of action
under implied warrant}? against defendant Ford. The theory as
to strict liability should be stricken inasmuch as it has not _
. been recognized in Florida. See dissent, Mattes v. Coca Cola Co. ,
So. 2d (4th D. A, C. Fla. I974). It ~vas
error to dismiss count une of the complaint, as the implied warranty
claim was valid.
3. ResG~tem~nt of Torts (Second) §398, is as follows:
"§398. Chattel ~Vlade Under Dangerous Plan or Design
A rnanufacturer of a chattel made under a p1aR or design which
makes it dangerous for the ~ses for which it is manufactured
is subject to liability to others whom he s'nould expect to ~se
E the chattel or to be endangered by irs probably use for physical
i harm caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care in the
I adoption of a saf~ plan or design. 'T
' This rule has been appro~~ed in Flvri~a in the cases of hiatthews v.
; Lawnlite Co. , 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 19~6), a~d king v. Douglas Aircraft,
~ supra. Plaintiffs were foreseeable users of the prc3duct within the
~ n:eaning of this rule.
; 4. As was stated in the case of Vanciercook 8: Son, Inc, v. ~orpe
~ (~th C:ir. 196~) s44 F. 2d 93Q, cons~ruing r)cr~da law:
~ We now conci~de that under Florida Ia~r: a manufacturer, ~
~ •
5 as distinguished from a retaiier of a pxoduct, may be held .
~ liable for breach of the implied warranty thac the product ;
- manufactured is reasonably fit for the p}lrp~ses intended ~
~ without regard to whether the plaiz~tiff is in privity of contract '
it is enough that the injured person be o~e of those
reasonably intended to usn tl~e machir?e, and that when the
injury occurred, the machine was being used generally in the
} manner intended. "
~ See also Barfiei~ v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. , 197 ~o. 2d ~45
F (Pla. App.1967); Manheirn v. Ford Motor Co. , 201So. 2d440 (r1a.1967},
z
3
z ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~4 ti R j
~ $o~K2~39 P~ 197
~
~ ~
~
;
"s
L ~
~ ~ :
- - ~b`'-
- ~~u.
~~e..~ ~ . . . ~ . . , _ _ ~MS ~