HomeMy WebLinkAbout0201 F
~
. ~
, F
1~AttItlhG'1~~\, :)'~'IS, l~ti5t)t.IF~[t'• jud~e, u~~I1C'lltlll~~; i~~ ~x~re, cjissent:ng
111 ~:11't: • t
1 conc~ir ith thc majority opicli~n ~~~ith tlie exe<~~~tI~n vf tl~c `
;
. _ .
~rti~>n tl~ercof strik~t~g plai.~tlffs' CZc~1111 f<?I relicf 1}aseci on tt~e ~lc~ctz ine
of strict liabilitv in tox t. f
r~1y exaznin3ti~n of i•ece~it Florida c;ases in the field ~f nrcxi~c:-~
lial:~Zity indicates a ciefiniC~ trend in i~~oi-iua towar~l ad~p~ion of ti~e d~c-
_ tri»e of strict ~i~bility in Cort as set forttl in Restatement, Sec.~ond Torts,
Sec. 442 A and introduce.~ into ttie case iaw ~f the Lji~ite~ States in the
_ , . .
. . ~
Iandmark case of Creenman v. 1'auba Power PrUducts, l~lc. ,(Cal. 19fi3) ~
. . 3i7 2d 897, 13 AI.~R3d 1049. 5ince 196.3 this doctr~ne has swe~~t the T =
COU?ItL'y so that by 1.y71 i[ ~~~a~ aGCepted and applied by son~e t~vo-thirds
- ~
; . c?f tlze court~. Pr~sspr, Torts, Sc:c, 98 p. L~57 -658 {4t11 ed. 1971). . -
{
~ in ttiz i-ecent ca~e of Keller ~.agle Army-Nav}~ I~~artment _
_ Stores, 29L 50, 2d 59 (4t1i D. C, A. = Fla, 19i~~, in ec~uatin~ the liability o~ ~
_ a retailei• with that of a manuf~cturer far ~~arketi:i~ a prodUCt allegeti to - ~
- . ;
~ be a~ danger~u~ ins~rumertalit}~ in iacts this cour~. applied tlj~ st~ict lia = ~
~
~
biiity Section ~QZ f~ ~f the Seco3ld Restate~nent of Torts, quoting Che sec-
tion witlz apparent ~pproval. In ~Zoyal Black and Decker Ntanufactur-
~ ~ng Co. , 20s So. 2d 307 (3d D, C: A. Fla. 19b7}; the doctrine o~ strict
i ~ l.iahilit~? in tort ~vas rec~gnized and. discussed although the trial c:ourt was ~
~ ~ affirmed in its dismissal of the~ complaint fo~ failure to allege facts from
- whicl~ .~easonable men might conciude that the .product un~er co~isideration
~;~as un.reasonabl; dangerous or defective. See also the case of E3arficld
- ,
_
v. 1.;. S. Rubber Co. , 234 Sc~. 2d 37~ (Zd ll. C, A. Fla. 1970}.
_ As was stated by Judge Niager in his dissenting opinion-in the ~ -
- ~ case.of t~/taites v. C'oca Gola ~ttling Co. of It~tiami, FIa. , ~o. 2d
(4th I:. C, A. Fls. 1974}:
In a producrs Ii~biiiry case, an injured plaintiff _
o~ght to he g~rc:~itted recovPry against.zhe manufac~i~r- -
- er for defective prcdu~:ts on the theory of strict liabil - ~
;
ity in tort r?gardless of whether the ~.~laintiff is a con -
- sumer, user or byGtander , . . . Th~ req_uirement of - - -
- - - t
- ~ - - E
~ _ i.
- - 800K~eI~ PAGE ~ ~
_ G
. - _s
4 - ~ - -