HELEN MOBLEY AND CURTIS MOBLEY, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA BEVERAGE CORPORATION, GERALD WALKER STORE, INC. AND AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO., 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.
Mrs. Mobley was injured when a defective cardboard carton of Pepsi bottles purchased at a Gerald Walker Store collapsed. The court reversed the dismissal of her strict liability claim against the retailer, holding that retailers are liable under strict liability doctrine for defects arising after the product comes into their possession, even though manufacturing defects occurred before.
A retailer is strictly liable for defects in products sold, including defects that arise after the product comes into the retailer's possession. The strict liability claim against the retailer (Gerald Walker Store) should not have been struck, and the case should proceed to a jury on that claim. However, the distributor (South Florida Beverage Corporation) may not be held strictly liable because there was no evidence the defect existed when the product left its possession.
[1] A retailer may be held strictly liable for a defective product sold to a consumer.
[2] A showing that a product was in a defective condition when sold creates a jury question under the doctrine of strict liability.
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“There is ample evidence that the carton was in a defective condition when Walker sold it to Mrs. Mobley. Such a showing in itself creates a jury question under the strict liability doctrine.”
Establishes that proof of defective condition at time of sale is sufficient to create a jury question under strict liability, supporting reversal of the trial court's striking of the strict liability count.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Mobley purchased a four-pack of 32-ounce Pepsi Cola bottles in a cardboard carton from Gerald Walker Store. Shortly after arriving home, the bott…
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
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The plaintiffs in a personal injury action appeal from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendants.
We reverse as to one defendant and affirm as to the other. According to Mrs. Mobley, shortly after she returned home from a supermarket operated by the Gerald Walker Store, Inc., the bottom fell out of a cardboard carton of four 32-ounce Pepsi Cola bottles she had purchased there, and the falling bottles injured her leg. There was expert testimony that the failure had occurred because the carton had been exposed to excess moisture — a conclusion entirely consistent with the fact that the market had stored such products in an area behind the store where there had been persistent flooding.
Nevertheless, the trial judge struck the plaintiffs’ strict liability claim against Walker, and submitted the case to the jury solely on the issue of negligence. This was clearly reversible error.1
There is ample evidence that the carton was in a defective condition when Walker sold it to Mrs. Mobley. Such a showing in itself creates a jury question under the strict liability doctrine. West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1976), adopting section 402A, Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).
It is well-established in Florida, moreover, that the doctrine, as specified in section 402A itself, applies to retailers like Walker. 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); Adobe Building Centers, Inc. v. Reynolds, 403 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), pet. for review dismissed, 411 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1981); cf. Keith v. Russell T. Bundy & Associates, Inc., 495 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (dealer in used goods sold “as is” not strictly liable for manufacturing defect).2 In correctly pointing out that, unlike the present situation, all these cases involve manufacturing defects, Walker does not seem to realize that this argument cuts in the exactly opposite way directly against its position. Since a retailer is liable for defects over which it has no control, it is all the more obviously responsible to an innocent purchaser like the plaintiff for a defect which was created only after the product came into its possession — and for which, therefore, the manufacturer and others higher up in the distributive chain are not liable.
Indeed, it is on that very basis — the absence of any evidence that the defect in the carton existed prior to its arrival at the store — that we find no error in striking the strict liability count as against the South Florida Beverage Corporation, the Pepsi distributor which delivered the carton to Walker.3
For these reasons, the judgment for Walker and its insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, is reversed for a new trial on the strict liability claim. The judgment for South Florida Beverage Corporation is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
. The store's argument that any error was rendered harmless by the verdict in its favor on the negligence count is hardly worthy of response. Any finding that the store — as its counsel successfully argued to the jury — had not failed to exercise due care in its storage of the cartons says nothing about its responsibility under the strict liability doctrine which arises simply if there were a defect in the product at the time of the sale.
. Walker’s attempt to invoke the Keith holding on the basis of evidence that the carton in question had been previously used and recycled is plainly unavailing because, unlike Keith, the carton was obviously neither known to the customer nor sold by the store as a “used product.”
. We note that, at the trial, the plaintiffs correctly withdrew their previously asserted claim against Mead Packaging Company, the manufacturer of the carton, because there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Samuel Friedland Fam. Enters. v. Amoroso, 630 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1994)…c who may be injured by the product. Id. at 86. Since West, Florida courts have expanded the doctrine of strict liability 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. Cente…
-
Amoroso v. Samuel Friedland Fam. Enters., 604 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…cond) of Torts § 402A(2)(b) (1965). The second contention is likewise without merit. Even if no manufacturing defect is shown, the seller is liable for defects over which it has control. As the court stated in Mobley v. South Florida Beverage Corp., 500 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986): Since a retailer is liable for defects over which it has no control, it is all the more obviously responsible to an innocent purchaser like the plaintiff for a defect which was created only after the product eante into its…1 / 2
-
N. Miami Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Goldberg, 520 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…nancial burden of even an undetectable product defect. The rationale of the doctrine thus inherently requires a defendant which is in a business5 within the product’s distributive chain. See and compare, e.g., Mobley v. South Florida Beverage Corp., 500 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (retailer of defective Pepsi cartons strictly liable), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1117 (Fla.1987), with Johnson v. Supro Corp., 498 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (manufacturer which defectively rebuilds machinery for its own use in…
Authorities 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)
- Theda Keith v. Russell T. Bundy & Assocs., Inc., 495 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Alberta Bass Perry v. Luby Chevrolet, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Visnoski v. J.C. Penney Co., 477 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)