WILLIAM VISNOSKI AND SHIRLEY VISNOSKI, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF TAMBRA VISNOSKI, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of strict liability claim against retailer J.C. Penney, holding that strict liability in tort applies to non-manufacturing sellers of allegedly defective products.
Strict liability in tort is available against a non-manufacturing seller or retailer of an allegedly defective product.
[1] Strict liability in tort applies to retailers and non-manufacturing sellers of allegedly defective products under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants brought a products liability personal injury action against J.C. Penney for an allegedly defective lawn mower.…
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 Defective Product cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
In this products liability personal injury action, the trial court dismissed with prejudice appellants’ strict liability claim against appellee, ruling that strict liability is not available against a non-manufacturing seller of an allegedly defective product. This was appellants’ only claim against appellee. We reverse.
In Adobe Building Centers, Inc. v. Reynolds, 403 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), our sister court held that the doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to a retailer and distributor of an allegedly defective product. As noted by the Fourth District in Reynolds, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402 A (1965), adopted in West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1976), specifically refers to a seller as being subject to strict liability. Furthermore, there is general accord among other jurisdictions that strict liability is applicable to retailers. See generally Annot., 13 A.L.R.3d 1057, 1099 (1967); 63 Am.Jur.2d Products Liability § 572 (1984). Consistent with our sister court in Reynolds, we hold that the doctrine of strict liability in tort is available against appellee, the non-manufacturing seller of the allegedly defective lawn mower. We are not called upon to review the complaint otherwise and therefore express no opinion on its sufficiency.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
SCHEB, A.C.J. and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015)…usiness of leasing a sailboat, which was an allegedly defective product); Stazenski v. Tennant Co., 617 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (applying West to a manufacturing defect claim regarding an industrial sweeper); Visnoski v. J.C. Penney Co., 477 So. 2d 29, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (applying West to strict liability claims against retailers); Liggett Group, Inc. v. Davis, 973 So. 2d 467, 473-75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (applying the Second Restatement and West in a claim involving cigarette smoking injuries);…
-
Samuel Friedland Fam. Enters. v. Amoroso, 630 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1994)…ty to others in the distributive chain including retailers, wholesalers, and distributors. Mobley v. South Florida Beverage Corp., 500 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (retailers), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1117 (Fla.1987); Visnoski v. J.C. Penney Co., 477 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (distributors); Perry v. Luby Chevrolet, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (retailers); Adobe Bldg. Centers, Inc. v. Reynolds, 403 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA) (retailers and wholesalers), review dismissed, 411 So. 2d 380 (Fl…
-
Porter v. Robert Kent Rosenberg, M.D., 650 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…mment (f) to section 402A, the doctrine has subsequently been extended to all distributors of the product. Adobe Bldg. Ctrs., Inc. v. Reynolds, 403 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 411 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1981); Visnoski v. J.C. Penney Co., 477 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Perry v. Luby Chevrolet, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The rationale for applying strict liability to distributors is that: Retailers like manufacturers are engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public…
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)
- Adobe Bldg. Ctrs., Inc. v. Reynolds, 403 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)