JAMES Z. CRAFT, APPELLANT,
v.
WET 'N WILD, 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.
Strict liability does not apply to structural improvements to real property, including a water slide amusement attraction, even when manufactured on-site by the owner.
Strict liability principles do not apply to defects in structural improvements to real property.
[1] Strict liability does not apply to defects in structural improvements to real property, even when the improvement is manufactured on-site by the property owner.
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 intelligenceJames Craft was injured while riding a water slide owned and operated by Wet 'N Wild, Inc. Craft sued for strict liability based on an alleged defect …
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 Negligent Design cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff below, James Craft, sued Wet ’N Wild, Inc., as a result of injuries he sustained while riding a large water slide owned and operated by the corporate defendant. Count two of his complaint was predicated on strict liability. The trial court granted a judgment on the pleadings against plaintiff on this count. The issue on appeal, as framed by the plaintiff, is: Can a defect in a water slide amusement attraction manufactured on site by the owner give rise to a cause of action in strict liability?
We agree with the trial judge’s negative answer to this question. Principles of strict liability do not apply to structural improvements to real property. Jackson v. L.A.W. Contracting Corp., 481 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Neumann v. Davis Water and Waste, Inc., 433 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983). The exception to the general rule — i.e., injuries arising from a product manufactured by a defendant and incorporated into an improvement to real property may support a strict liability action1 — is not relevant to the instant action, which alleges the defectiveness of the structural improvement itself. The plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent design was alleged in, and tried pursuant to, count three of his complaint, and is not at issue on this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. See Vaughn v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 462 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring specially:
Because of the design and construction of this water-slide I agree that strict liability is not available to this plaintiff. This water-slide is built of soil and poured concrete forming a structure not unlike footings for a building. The soil is mounded, shaped, entrenched and the entrenchments concreted. Water is made to flow down and, at various points, pool up, creating simulated mountain stream rapids. The structure is incorporated into the land and is not built upon and attached to the land. Thus, in my opinion the plaintiff could not prove an entitlement to a strict liability instruction under the law as cited in the majority opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Easterday v. Masiello, 518 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1988)…. Furthermore, it has long been recognized that the doctrine of strict products liability does not apply to structural improvements to real estate. See Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Vaughn, 491 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla.1986); Craft v. Wet ’n Wild, Inc., 489 So. 2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Jackson v. L.A. W. Contracting Corp., 481 So. 2d 1290,1291 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); Neumann v. Davis Water & Waste, Inc., 433 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (…
-
William (Rocky) Seitz v. ZAC Smith & Co., Inc., 500 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…sold in the marketplace so that principles of strict liability or implied warranty apply. See Chadbourne v. Vaughn, 491 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1986) (public road is not a product for purposes of application of strict liability); Craft v. Wet ’n Wild, Inc., 489 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (defect in water slide amusement attraction manufactured on site by owner did not give rise to cause of action in strict liability); Jackson v. L.A.W. Contracting Corp., 481 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (contract to repair, se…
-
Pamperin v. The Interlake Cos., Inc., 634 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ally considered products for purposes of products liability actions. Easterday v. Masiello, 518 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1988) (jail facility); Seitz v. Zac Smith & Co., Inc., 500 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (floodlight tower); Craft v. Wet ’N Wild, Inc., 489 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (amusement park water slide); Neumann v. Davis Water and Waste, Inc., 433 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983) (sewage treatment tank); and Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Vaughn, 491 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neumann v. Davis Water & Waste, Inc., 433 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Jackson v. L.A.W. Contracting Corp., 481 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Algie F. Vaughn v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 462 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)