ROBERT H. MATTHEWS, AS GUARDIAN OF DALE HARLER, APPELLANT,
v.
GSP CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A guardian appealed directed verdicts entered in favor of defendants in a products liability and negligence action arising from a scaffold collapse that injured Dale Harler. The court affirmed the directed verdicts, finding insufficient evidence to support liability against the cable seller, alleged manufacturers, and construction site owner.
The court affirmed the directed verdicts, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish: (1) that American Universal sold the cable that broke; (2) that any cable was defective when it left the defendants' hands; (3) the identity of the cable manufacturer; and (4) that the construction site owner actively participated in construction to directly influence the manner of work performed.
[1] A plaintiff must present competent evidence that the specific product involved in an accident was sold by the defendant to establish liability against the seller.
[2] To prevail on a products liability claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's or seller's control and that the def…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“First, the Appellant-Plaintiff failed to prove that the cable which broke was sold by the Appellee, American Universal. The cable had been replaced at least two times before the accident by the owner of the scaffold. There was simply no competent evidence which demonstrated that American Universal sold the cable involved in the accident.”
Establishes lack of evidence connecting defendant to the defective product
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDale Harler was injured when he fell from a scaffold suspended at the eighth floor level of a building under construction after a cable at one end bro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Evidentiary Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
MITCHELL, HENRY CLAY, Jr., Associate Judge.
Appellant-Plaintiff appeals final judgments rendered after the trial court entered directed verdicts for Appellees-GSP Corporation, American Universal of Florida, Inc., and Weatherford AAI, Inc., and American Aero, Inc. Dale Harler was injured when he fell from a scaffold which was suspended at the eighth floor level of a condominium under construction. The Appellant, Plaintiff below, is Dale Harler’s guardian. The fall occurred when a cable at one end of the scaffold broke causing Harler to fall to the ground. The Appellant filed a complaint against several defendants for negligence and/or products liability. The defendants below included all of the Appellees and the owner of the scaffold and cables involved in the accident. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court entered directed verdicts for all of the Appellees except the owner of the scaffold and cables.
The primary issue for appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering a directed verdict for the defendants. We affirm.
AMERICAN UNIVERSAL (The seller of the original cable).
First, the Appellant-Plaintiff failed to prove that the. cable which broke was sold by the Appellee, American Universal. The cable had been replaced at least two times before the accident by the owner of the scaffold. There was simply no competent evidence which demonstrated that American Universal sold the cable involved in the accident. Also, the Appellant has failed to present any competent evidence that the cable which broke was defective at the time that it left the hands of the alleged seller of the cable and that the cable broke because of the defect. In addition, we find that the trial court did not err in failing to introducé a brochure concerning general sales information about products sold by American Universal. The brochure does not contain the standards or specifications with regard to the type of cable that should be used with the scaffold involved in the accident. WEATHERFORD AAI, INC. and AMERICAN AERO, INC. (Alleged manufacturer of the cable).
Appellant failed to present evidence showing the identity of the manufacturer of the cable which broke. The Appellant further failed to present any evidence from which a fact finder could have properly concluded that the cable was defective when it left the hands of any manufacturer or supplier. GSP CORPORATION (The alleged owner of the construction site).
As to the owner of the construction site, the Appellant has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the Appellee-owner actively participated in the construction to the extent that he directly influenced the manner in which the work was performed. See Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1973).
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the judgments appealed are hereby AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton v. Abbott Labs., 538 F. Supp. 593 (M.D. Fla. 1982)…es: “In order to hold a manufacturer liable ... the user must establish the manufacturer’s relationship to the product in question ... . ” Id. at 87. The courts of Florida have enforced this requirement. See, e.g., Matthews v. GSP Corp., 368 So.2d 391 (Fla.App.1979). Plaintiff relies on several legal theories in support of her argument that recovery is available without proof of which drug company actually manufactured the pills in question. The first two theories concern joint torts: plainti…
-
Hall v. Sunjoy Indus. Grp., Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (M.D. Fla. 2011)…ct, Inc. v. Lynch, 444 So.2d 1093, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (reversing jury verdict where plaintiff “did not offer sufficient evidence that defendant manufactured the defective chair” that caused plaintiffs injuries); Matthews v. GSP Corp., 368 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (defendant could not be held liable where “[ajppellant failed to present evidence showing the identity of the manufacturer of the cable which broke”). Plaintiffs concede the fact that Sunjoy did not design, manufacture,…
-
Carlson v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 693 F. Supp. 1073 (S.D. Fla. 1987)…ged that they used a product manufactured by defendant, as required by Florida law. See Vecta Contract, Inc. v. Lynch, 444 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1984), review denied, 453 So.2d 44 (Fla 1984); Matthews v. GSP Corp., 368 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1979). The Court finds that plaintiffs have alleged that plaintiff Ragnar Carlson “was exposed to asbestos-containing products mined, manufactured or distributed by Defendants....” Complaint para. 26. The Court finds that *1…
Authorities Cited
- Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1973)