WORRELL JOHNSON, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD T. BYRNES COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The appellate court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant, finding sufficient evidence to support a jury's verdict for the plaintiff under strict liability. The court reinstated the jury's original award to the plaintiff.
Yes, the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict. There was sufficient evidence presented to support a jury finding that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and that this defect caused the plaintiff's injury, satisfying the elements of strict liability.
[1] A seller is subject to strict liability for physical harm caused by a product sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, or to their pr…
[2] Competent substantial evidence supporting each element of strict liability, including a defective and unreasonably dangerous product that caused injury, is sufficient for…
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“In the record before us there is competent substantial evidence to support a jury finding that (a) Byrnes was in the business of selling edge banders, (b) the edge ban-der sold, being without adequate safety guards for its saw blades, was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user, (c) the edge bander reached the user without substantial change in condition, at least with regard to the alleged defect, and (d) the defective product was a legal cause of Johnson’s injury.”
Establishes the court's finding that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find strict liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Johnson, was injured by an edge bander sold by the defendant, Byrnes. Johnson sued Byrnes under strict liability, and a jury initially …
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 Condition Unreasonably Dangerous cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Johnson appeals a judgment in accordance with a motion for directed verdict entered in favor of Richard T. Byrnes Co., Inc. (Byrnes). Byrnes cross-appeals, contending that if a reversal of the judgment is indicated, it is entitled to a new trial. We reverse the judgment in favor of Byrnes and find that the errors claimed on cross-appeal were either not preserved or are without merit.
In West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 87 (Fla.1976), this state adopted the doctrine of strict liability as stated, in part, in Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 402 A (1965),
(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
In the record before us there is competent substantial evidence to support a jury finding that (a) Byrnes was in the business of selling edge banders, (b) the edge bander sold, being without adequate safety guards for its saw blades, was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user, (c) the edge bander reached the user without substantial change in condition, at least with regard to the alleged defect, and (d) the defective product was a legal cause of Johnson’s injury. Since there was evidence establishing each of the elements of strict liability, the jury could properly return a verdict for Johnson. The trial court therefore erred in entering judgment in accordance with Byrnes’ motion for directed verdict. See Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968); Behar v. Root, 393 So. 2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Martinez v. Clark Equipment Co., 382 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Byrnes is reversed with directions to enter judgment on the jury’s verdict.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Bart M. Behar v. Root, 393 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson Aircraft Tire Corp., 382 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Ildefonso Martinez and Nancy Martinez v. Clark Equip. Co. & W. E. Johnson Equip. Co., 382 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)