BILLIE EARL HETHCOAT, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM RANDOLPH EATMAN, JR., DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
CHEVRON OIL CO., HY-WAY HEAT SYSTEMS, INC., AND V. E. WHITEHURST & SONS, INC., 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.
An administratrix of a deceased's estate appealed a trial court's directed verdict in a products liability case involving a defective heat tank. The Florida Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of the Auburn Machine Works decision rejecting the patent danger doctrine, and the appellate court reversed the directed verdict against Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc., while affirming judgments against the other defendants.
The trial court erred in granting the directed verdict for Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc.; erred in excluding the expert's opinion regarding the venting system's efficiency; and erred in its treatment of post-accident remedial measures evidence, as Hy-Way opened the door to such evidence through its president's testimony suggesting no post-accident changes were made.
[1] A trial court errs in granting a directed verdict in favor of a defendant in a products liability case.
[2] A trial court errs in not permitting an expert witness to express an opinion in response to a hypothetical question regarding the efficiency of a system to prevent combus…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc.”
The core holding that the directed verdict was improper and the case must proceed to trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Randolph Eatman, Jr., died in an incident involving a heat tank. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Hy-Way Heat Systems, I…
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 Patent Danger Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By opinion on rehearing the Supreme Court of Florida quashed the decision of this Court in Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 364 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and remanded for consideration only as to appellee, Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc. Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 380 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.1980). The decision of this Court as to appellees Chevron Oil Company and V. E. Whitehurst & Sons, Inc., was approved.
Upon reconsideration of our decision with respect to appellee Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc., in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Auburn Machine Works Co. v. Jones, 366 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.1979), rejecting the “patent danger doctrine” as an absolute defense in products liability cases, we find as follows with respect to the points raised by appellant on this appeal:
1. The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc. 2. The trial court erred in not permitting appellant’s engineering expert to express his opinion in response to a hypothetical question presented to him as to the efficiency of the venting system of the heat tank to remove vapors so as to exclude the possibility of a combustible mixture existing in the heat tank.
3. While evidence of postaccident remedial and precautionary measures undertaken and recommended by a defendant is, as a general rule, not admissible evidence as proof of the defendant’s negligence in not having taken such remedial action prior to the accident, Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc., opened the door to such evidence on rebuttal by presenting testimony of its president which had the effect of indicating to the jury that it had made no changes in its recommendations as to use of the tank subsequent to the accident.
The final judgment is affirmed as to appellees Chevron Oil Company and V. E. Whitehurst & Sons, Inc., but is reversed and remanded for a new trial as to Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc. Since the case is to be retried, we consider that the directions of the Supreme Court in Linder v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 342 So. 2d 474, 476 (Fla.1977), as follows are now applicable to this action:
Under the circumstances, we hold that the doctrine of strict liability as announced in West shall be applied as follows:
‡ ‡ * sfc }fc ;fc
(2) As to those cases already commenced, but in which trial has not yet begun, the strict liability rule shall be applicable.
Prior to new trial, appellant shall be allowed, if he so desires, to amend his complaint to seek relief under the doctrine of strict liability in tort under the principles announced by the Florida Supreme Court in West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1976), appellant having sought and been denied such amendment during the course of the previous trial.
McCORD, ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…e the defendant's claimed lack of knowledge. Murray v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc., 429 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dept. of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), approved, 438 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1983); Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As we view the complained of evidence, it was offered to show the continuation of an intentional course of conduct decided upon prior to the relevant period of plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos products and was not offered as pro…
-
Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016)…. Boone, 85 So. 2d 834, 839 (Fla.1956)). Other district courts have likewise permitted a party to bring new claims where the case is remanded for a new trial. See Agate v. Clampitt, 80 So. 3d 450, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So. 2d 931, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The principles of Ed Riche — not—Airvac—apply. We therefore reject this argument. III. Statute of Limitations & Equitable Tolling We turn next to R.J. Reynolds’ argument that the statute of limitations and principles of e…
-
Voynar v. Butler Mfg. Co., 463 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…nce does not list any exceptions, our courts recognize and permit certain exceptions for the introduction of such evidence in negligence actions. E.g., Murray v. Almadén Vineyards, Inc., 429 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); accord, Pensacola Inn, Ltd. v. Tut-hill, 4C4 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); American Motors Cory. v. Ellis, 403 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). [*412] The record fails to support appellant’s contention that feasibility of chan…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)
- Auburn Mach. Works Co., Inc. v. Jones, 366 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1979)
- Schreiber Express, Inc. v. Mayo, 342 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1977)
- Levert Linder and Emma Jean Linder v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 342 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1977)
- Hethcoat v. Chevron OIL Co., 364 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Hethcoat v. Chevron OIL Co., 380 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Allen, 380 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1980)