CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT BRAUN, JEFFERSON STORES, INC., 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.
Plaintiff was injured when he fell off a ladder manufactured by Consolidated and sued on negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty theories. The jury found Consolidated negligent but found the ladder was not defective and there was no breach of warranty, an inconsistent verdict that the appellate court reversed because all negligence allegations necessarily required proof of a product defect.
The verdict is internally inconsistent and must be reversed. Because every allegation of negligence against Consolidated necessarily depended upon proof of a defect in the ladder, the jury's finding of no defect is incompatible with its finding of negligence. In cases where negligence claims are wholly dependent on proving a product defect, there is no practical difference between negligence and strict liability theories.
[1] A party does not waive a challenge to a fundamentally inconsistent jury verdict by failing to object before the jury is discharged.
[2] A jury verdict finding a defendant negligent but not design defective is fundamentally inconsistent when the only evidence of negligence presented relates to a design def…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Thus, every allegation of negligence is dependent upon proof of a defect in the ladder. The jury found the ladder did not contain a defect and that there was no breach of any implied warranty. We ask the same question which appellant poses on appeal: How could Consolidated have been negligent in the design and manufacturing of a product which contains no defect?”
Establishes the core logical inconsistency: if all negligence allegations require proving a defect, then finding no defect makes a negligence finding impossible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Braun was injured when he fell off a ladder manufactured by Consolidated Aluminum Corporation. The complaint alleged negligence in manufacturin…
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 Design and Manufacture cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Plaintiff/appellee was injured when he fell off a ladder manufactured by appellant, Consolidated. Suit was brought on three theories: negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. The allegations of negligence against Consolidated were set forth in the complaint as follows:
a. Negligently manufactured the ladder out of materials which were inadequate to perform the functions required of the ladder. b. Negligently designed the ladder such that it was not strong enough to support the weight of the average man.
c. Failed to design the ladder with sufficient width to keep it from becoming unstable.
d. Negligently designed the ladder in such a way that any shift in the weight or minor deviation in weight distribution would result in the legs becoming inadequate to support the person on the ladder. e. Failed to place any warning notices of this defect on the ladder warning the Plaintiff of these dangerous conditions. (Emphasis added.) On plaintiffs breach of implied warranty claim, he alleged that the ladder was not fit for use for its intended purposes and was not of merchantable quality in that its legs bent and twisted causing Braun to be thrown from the ladder to the ground. On his strict liability claim, Braun alleged that the ladder was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer due to the defect in the design and/or manufacture of the product.
The case was submitted to the jury on a special interrogatory verdict. The jury found negligence on the part of Consolidated but found that the ladder was not defective and that Consolidated had not breached an implied warranty. Braun was determined to be 60% negligent, and his total award of $1 million was reduced to $400,-000.
On appeal, Consolidated contends that the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict and in entering judgment upon the verdict. Although not labeled as such, the real issue in this case is the inconsistency of the verdict. The first three questions of the verdict form read as follows:
1. Was there negligence on the part of the Defendant, CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION, which was a legal cause of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff, ROBERT BRAUN?
YES YES NO _
2. Did Defendant, CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION breach an implied warranty in regard to the ladder and was such breach the legal cause of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff?
YES _ NO NO
3. Was the ladder in question defective when it was sold by the Defendant, CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION and was such defect the legal cause of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff?
YES _ NO NO
Apparently Braun, as well as the trial court, viewed the three questions as referring to separate theories and as being mutually exclusive. However, every paragraph of the complaint dealing with negligence states that Consolidated was negligent in designing or manufacturing the ladder. Thus, every allegation of negligence is dependent upon proof of a defect in the ladder. The jury found the ladder did not contain a defect and that there was no breach of any implied warranty. We ask the same question which appellant poses on appeal: How could Consolidated have been negligent in the design and manufacturing of a product which contains no defect? The appellee has no satisfactory answer. We do not accept Braun’s argument that a finding of no defect merely means that the jury did not find Consolidated strictly liable for the injury but has no effect on the jury’s determination of negligence. Braun contends that, if viewed otherwise, there would be no difference between negligence and strict liability. In some cases, such as this one where all the allegations of negligence are dependent upon proof of a defect, there is no practical difference between the two theories. Since the jury found no defect, we hold that it was inconsistent to find negligence on the part of Consolidated based on the pleadings and the proof at trial. We reverse and remand for a new trial on all issues.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moorman v. Am. Safety Equip., 594 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…Block & England are hereby substituted for Magill & Lewis as counsel of record for the Appellee-Cross-Appel-lant, American Safety Equipment, in the above-styled cause of action. . ASE also cites our decision in Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), to support the exception for "fundamental inconsistencies.” But there was no waiver issue at all raised in Braun, and our previous Robbins decision was not even mentioned. We are therefore unwilling to take Braun any farther tha…
-
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS-CIVIL CASES (NO. 02-2), 872 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2004)…Further, the proposed notes provide a caution to judges and lawyers concerning the possibility of an inconsistent verdict when both a negligence claim and a defective design claim are submitted to a jury. See, e.g., Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ashby Din of Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The Committee’s proposal makes two changes to Comment 2 regarding PL 5. First, the proposal updates the case law cited for definitions of the ter…1 / 2
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Civil Cases-Report NO. 13-01 (Products Liability), 160 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2015)…n and sale of the product. Restatement (Second) Torts, § 402A(2)(a). In cases involving claims of both negligence and defective design, submission of both claims may result in an inconsistent verdict. See, e.g., Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ashby Division of Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also Moorman v. American Safety Equip., 594 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); North American Catamaran Racing Ass’n v. McCollister, 48…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence