WILLIAM M. HORAN, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,

v.

MARIA DEL CARMEN HORAN, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Moorman v. Am. Safety Equip., 594 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
  …nied, 476 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1985), the court [*801] disapproved the notion that our products liability law made strict liability and negligence two separate verbalizations of a single legal concept. Directly on point is Cohen v. General Motors Corp., 427 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), where this court squarely held that: A duty to warn arises where a product is inherently dangerous or has dangerous propensities. Thus, a warning of a known danger in a non-defective machine is required in the exercise of reaso…
• Maritza Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Mfg. Co., 816 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
  …is inherently dangerous or has dangerous propensities. Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Roy, 466 So. 2d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Brito v. County of Palm Beach, 753 So. 2d 109, 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see, e.g., Cohen v. Gen. Motors Corp., Cadillac Div., 427 So. 2d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Perez v. Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc., 431 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). This court has recognized that, “[t]o warn adequately, the product label must make apparent the potential- harmful consequences. The warning shoul…
• Brown v. Glade & Grove Supply, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
  …e for his own safety caution commensurate with the potential danger”). Further, the danger of roll-over from non-use of a lock-out pin is not the type of “obvious” danger to which this court referred in Cohen v. General Motors Corp., Cadillac Div., 427 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) so as to lead to the conclusion that no warning was required. Rather, a manufacturer and supplier of a product who knows or has reason to know that the product is likely to be dangerous in normal use has a duty to warn those who…

Authorities Cited

• Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)