HomeMy WebLinkAbout0197 ~ • ~ " '
~
Florida . 3
} ~ Appell~es wntcrid tt~at ~laii~tiffs are l,~rrtd from
~ TGCO~'@I•ing ft•om Nord and Firestone unde~ the theor}? c;f implied warranty
~ -
~ b}~ reason of Ia~;k of. privity, . 1'h~s contentio~ is without merit.
S ~ ~
~ l~ormer r~quirements of privity in an ac~ion k~y a foreseeaule user of a
,
~ ~ . ,
~ - ~
~ px-oduct against the manufacturer charging bre~ct~ of implied ,
~ ~ -
~ ~ «~arrarity have been abrogated in Florida, 4`'~'e find tilat count one
~ ~ . - `
alleg~s' ultimare facts which are sufficient for a cause of acti~n
_ - ~ ~ ~
_ . -*ande.r implie~ wa~-ranty againsC def~ndant ~'~:~rd. 1'i:e theor}r as
~ _ . -
to strict liability shauld be stricken inasmuch as it has not
~ been -recogniztd in Florida. See dissei~t, I~~iattes Coca Cola Co. , ~
~ - . .
- So: 2d (4th D. A. C;. Fla. I974}. Ir _~vas -
k w- _ •
. ~ error tu ~ismiss count une of the complaint, as the imp~ied w~rranty ~ ~
; . , -
, - .
! _ - - . . . . - . -
j claim was va~id, _
; . -
+~j _ . . . _ - .
~ 3. Res~tement of Torts (Second) §398, is as follows:
- - "§39t3. t~hattel ~iade Under Langerous Pl~n or Design ~ .
~ - A rnanufacturer of a chattel rnade u>>€~er a plarr or deszgn which
m~kes it dangerous for the ~5~s for ~~~hict~ it is manufactured
is subject to liability t~ others «~hom he s~.ould ex~ct to use - -
; the chat~el or to be endangered by its probably u~e for physical ~
_ ~ t~arm ~aused by t~~~ failtlr~ to exercxse reasonabl~ care in the
_ adoptiot~ of a: ~ic plan or design. . _
This rule ha~ L~en a~;~r~~Ted in Flori:ia in the cases of hlat~hews v. -
_ Lawi~lite C'.o. , 88 So, lci 299 (rla, 19~6}, and Kin~ v. Qougias Aircraft,
. ~ supra. Yiaintitfs ~~~ere foreseeable users of tlle rcdu~:i: ~4~ithin the -
- _ P
- - _ mearing of this rt~le. , - ~ - ~ ~ ~
: - 4. A~ «~as stated in the case of ~%ati:ie?'covk San, I~~c, v, lhorpe
. ~ (~t~~ Cir. iy6~) 3~~ F. 2cj 93Q, c;ons~ruing I'lcricia la~v:
We no~v conclu~~e that under ~~lorida ia~r a manufacturer, ~
. a- as distinguished from a retai2er of a proc~uct; may be held ~
~ - Iiable for b~each of t;ie iinplied warranty that the product ~
= manufacrured ~s reasonabl;.r ~it for the purp~ses intended . `
_ i
. _~=~itt~out regard to «rhet~ier rtie plais~tiff is. in privity c~f cont_ract
. - - it is enoug~~ that the ~injured pe.r~on be o;~~ of.those
r_easo>>ably intended to us~ tile machir~e, and ~hat «~h~n th~ `
- - in}ury occurred; the machine was ~ing used ~enerally in the ~ _
` ~ . ir~anne•r intended. „ - -
- ~
~See also ~3arfiei~ v, Atlantic ~oast Line K~ilroad Co. , 197 So. 2d 545 - _
; (Fla. ^~pp. 1967); IVlanheim v, ~
ord Motor Co. , 201So. 2d9~0 (rla. I967). _ _
_ . ~ - - _ - - ~ s
- ~ - - - ;
3
~ -
_ - - - ~
. . _ , 1
- - _ ~ - ~
~ "4 ~ U R ~ ~r ~
_ _ - $Q~K ~.c)c'1 PAGE ~ ~ / . 3
f _ -
. ~ ~ - ' - . ~
~ . . . ' . ` - - ~ .