ROWLAND TRUCK EQUIPMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
EVERWEAR PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLEE
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.
In this products liability case, a truck manufacturer (Rowland) appeals a summary judgment denying its claims for indemnity and contribution against a component supplier (Everwear). The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Rowland was not entitled to indemnity because it was negligent in selecting and installing the allegedly defective component, and that the contribution claim was barred by Everwear's good faith settlement with the plaintiff.
The court affirmed the summary judgment denying both the indemnity and contribution claims. Indemnity was properly denied because Rowland was negligent in selecting a patently defective design and in negligently installing the product. The contribution claim was barred under Florida's contribution statute because Everwear settled with the plaintiff and received a good faith release.
[1] A manufacturer of a finished product held strictly liable for damages caused by a defective component part is entitled to indemnity from the supplier of that part, provid…
[2] A manufacturer's negligence in selecting a patently defective product or in its installation bars an indemnity claim against the component part supplier.
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“when a manufacturer of a finished product is held strictly liable for damages caused to a third person by a defective component part that was purchased from a supplier and integrated into the finished product, the said manufacturer is entitled to recover indemnity from the party supplying the defective component part, provided the manufacturer was not himself negligent in either creating or failing to discover the defect”
Establishes the general rule for indemnity in products liability cases involving component parts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRowland, a truck manufacturer, purchased a component part from Everwear and installed it in a truck. The component was allegedly defective and caused …
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 Contribution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a products liability action in which a defendant truck manufacturer, Rowland Truck Equipment, Inc. [Rowland], appeals an adverse summary judgment on its indemnity and contribution claim filed against a co-defendant supplier, Everwear Products, Inc. [Everwear]. The crux of Rowland’s claim was that Everwear supplied an allegedly defective component part which (a) Rowland later installed in a truck and (b) ultimately caused the alleged injury to the plaintiff in this action, Willie A. Lee [Lee].
We have no trouble in affirming the summary judgment on the indemnity claim. The law is well-settled that when a manufacturer of a finished product is held strictly liable for damages caused to a third person by a defective component part that was purchased from a supplier and integrated into the finished product, the said manufacturer is entitled to recover indemnity from the party supplying the defective component part, provided the manufacturer was not himself negligent in either creating or failing to discover the defect. See Houdaille Industries v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490, 493-94 (Fla.1979); Burbage v. Boiler Engineering & Supply Co., 433 Pa. 319, 249 A. 2d 563 (Pa.1969); Wetherington, Tort Liability in Florida, 8 Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 383, 409-10 (1980); Annot., 3 A.L.R.3d 1016 (1965). No indemnity was permissible in this case because it is plain on this record that the defendant truck manufacturer Rowland was at fault in selecting a product that was designed in a patently defective manner and in negligently installing that product on the truck in question.
We also have no trouble in affirming the dismissal of the contribution claim because the co-defendant supplier Ever-wear settled with the plaintiff Lee in this cause and received an otherwise good faith release from the said plaintiff. Under the specific terms of Florida’s contribution statute [§ 768.31(5), Fla.Stat. (1983)], this showing bars the instant contribution claim. Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority v. Simmons, 375 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1980).
The final summary judgment and final order of dismissal under review are affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Archer W. Contractors, Ltd. v. Carr Smith & Assocs., Inc., 626 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See K-Mart Corp. v. Chairs, Inc., 506 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1987); Rowland Truck Equip., Inc. v. Everwear Prods., Inc., 468 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Metropolitan Dade County Transit Auth. v. Simmons, 375 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1980); Fri [*1108] er’s, Inc. v. Seaboard Coastline R.R., 356 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. Transit Auth. & William B. Houston v. Zeter Mae Simmons, 375 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)