HomeMy WebLinkAbout0198 We turn to wunt two of the complaint which alieges neglig~nce
;
on the part of ciefendants Ford and Firestone. This court alleges that
these defendants negligendy designed the locking rim and wheel and
negligently failed to test the r~rheel assembly with the result that the
wheel assembly was inherently unsafe, negligently failed to investigate
siinilar explosiors of similar wheels and rims so as to do proper re-
' search and cc~rrect the causes thereof, negligently failed to warn users
of the dangerous propensities of the wheel ~ssembly of which they knew
i
or should have known; and that as a result thereof plaintiffs were injured ;
when the rim pulled apart and exploded off the wheel while plaintiffs
i
were mounting a tirz on the wheel assembly which had be~n negligently {
desi~ned a;~d manufactvred by defendants Ford and Firestone, We find s
~
~
that count two sufficiently stated a clair.~ for rejief h3sed upon rtegligence
of defendants ~~ord and Firestone and the trial court erred in dismissing =
. ,
i
this count as to defe~dant Ford. ~
z
_ ~
Cuunt three against Sunrise ~laims dama~s for vioiati~n of . ~
{
the Uniform Comm~rcial C;ode warrant}~ section (§672. 2-314, FIorida ~
Statutes 19b7). It is alleged in this count that Sunrise contracted with
"fhe Goodyear 7'ire Store to change certain tires from an oId truck te
~ ~ the new 1968 Ford truck previously referred to and that plainriffs,
employees of The Goodyear Tire Store, were injured wt~en the outside
~ ~
;
dval rim on the 19b8 Ford truck pulled apart and explodeci as }~revious-
f
; Iy described. '~his ~ount is insufficient for th° reason that there was
i
~ no sa!e alleged on the part of Sunrise so as to invoke the (,'niform
~
~
~ Comi~c:rcial Code, Artic2e 2, warrant_y ?rovisions for the benefit of ;
$
~ :
~ plaintiffs. The delivery of the 1968 Ford trvck to p~aintiffs' employer
~
~ for the purpose of having the tires changed was not a sale but a .
s
-5 -
~
~ t uy
~
F
t
3
f
~
~ ~
~ i
s #
~ - ~QX ~ ~ ~
R ~
#
~
~ ~r -
~
_ _ , . -