HomeMy WebLinkAbout0201 1
f
~ t
i
j
FARRINGTON, ~TIS, rl5sociate judge, c~~ncurring in part, dissenting '
in p~rt: - ~
1 concur ~+~ith the majority opinion wit}~ the exeeption of the
porti~~n ttiereof sLriking plaintiffs' claim for relief based on tt~e doctrine
of strict liabilitv in tort.
My examination of recent Florida cases in the field of nroducrs
lia~ilitv indicates a definite trend in Florida toward adoption of the doc-
trine of strict liability in mrt as set forth in Restatement, Seoond Torts,
Sec. 402 A and introduced into [he case law of the United States Zn the
Iandmark case of Creenman v. Youba Power Products, Inc. ,(CaI. 1963)
3'7 P. 2d 897, 13 ALR3d 1049. Since 1g63 this doctrine has swept the
cou~try so that by 1971 it was accepted and applied by some two-thirds
of the courts, Prosser, Torts, Sec. 98 p. ~.57-658 (4th ed. 1971).
tn rhe recent ca se of Keller v. Eagle Army -Navy Department
Stores, 29L So. 2d ~9 (4th D. C. A. Fla. 1974), in equating the liability of
;
a retailei- with that of a manufacturer for marketin~ a product alleged to
be a dangerous instrumertality in fact, this court applied the strict lia -
bility Section ~02 A of the Second Restatement of Torts, quoting the sec-
tion with apparent approval. In Royal v. Black a~d Deckex Manufactur-
; ing Go. , 205 So, 2d 307 (3d D. C: A. Fla. 1967), the doctrine of strict
~ -
! liability in tort was recognized and. discussed aithough t~'~e trial court was
f
i
s affirmed in irs dismissal of the complaint for faiiure to allege facts from
t
g which reasonable men might conclude that the product un~er considera[ion
t
€
~ was unreasonabl,~ dangerous or defective. See also the case of Barfield
s ,
s
~ v. U. S. Rubber Co. , 234 So. 2d 374 (2d D. C. A. Fla. 1970},
a
~ •
~ As was stated by ~udge Mager in his dissenting opinion in the
z
~
~
x case of Utattcs v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Miami, Fla. , So. 2d
R
0.
~
(4th n. C. A. Fla. 1974):
a In a products liability casc, an injured plaintiff
~
ovght to be permitted recovery against the manufactur-
; er for defective products on the theory of strict Iiabil-
; ity in tort regardless of whether the plaintiff is a con -
; sumer, user or byscander The requirement of
~
~
~ _g_
~
~
~
y
~ 800K~.thy PA~E ~
~
~
~
~ -
~
~ ~ !
, ~
_
~ ' ' . ~ . ,i -
.w.r: i.3 _ . . . . _ . . . -