GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN C. REID, ET AL., 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.
Georgia-Pacific manufactured a soap dispenser designed for its own pink soap but leased to Sambo's Restaurant. When Sambo's used an unauthorized bluish-green soap that leaked and caused an injury, a jury verdict held Georgia-Pacific liable despite finding the dispenser non-defective and Environmental Services not negligent. The appellate court reversed, holding Georgia-Pacific cannot be liable for a non-defective product misused by the restaurant.
Georgia-Pacific is not liable. The jury's finding that the dispenser was reasonably designed and non-defective, combined with Sambo's unauthorized misuse of a different soap product, renders only Sambo's liable, not the manufacturer. Georgia-Pacific had no duty to warn users that liquid soap is slippery as this is common sense.
[1] A manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by the misuse of its nondefective product when the user deviates from express instructions and warnings.
[2] A manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by a third party's use of a product with a substance not supplied or approved by the manufacturer.
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“This interpretation of events, the strongest inferentially available for the plaintiffs under the evidence presented, renders Sambo's liable for the misuse of Georgia-Pacific's nondefective product — but not Georgia-Pacific.”
Establishes the core holding that a manufacturer cannot be liable for injuries caused by misuse of a non-defective product
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn C. Reid was injured falling in a Sambo's Restaurant restroom on bluish-green liquid soap that leaked from a soap dispenser. The dispenser was man…
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 Misuse Of Product cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The plaintiff below, John C. Reid, was injured as the result of a fall in a Sambo’s Restaurant restroom. The fall, according to the plaintiffs, was occasioned by some bluish-green liquid soap which had leaked onto the floor from a soap dispenser. The dispenser was leased to Sambo’s by the manufacturer, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, acting through a distributor, Environmental Services, Inc. Reid and his wife sued Sambo’s, Georgia-Pacific and Environmental Services. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in a $1,200,000 verdict against Sambo’s and Georgia-Pacific. Environmental Services was expressly exonerated from any negligence by the jury verdict. Georgia-Pacific brings this appeal.
The undisputed facts show that Georgia-Pacific manufactured a soap dispenser reasonably designed (as found by jury interrogatory verdict) to dispense Georgia-Pacific pink soap. Sambo’s was expressly told to use the Georgia-Pacific soap and warned not to use other soap. Without Georgia-Pacific’s knowledge, Sam-bo’s apparently used some bluish-green liquid soap, which leaked onto the floor, causing Reid’s fall. This interpretation of events, the strongest inferentially available for the plaintiffs under the evidence presented, renders Sambo’s liable for the misuse of Georgia-Pacific’s nondefective product — but not Georgia-Pacific. See, e.g., Perez v. National Presto Industries, Inc., 431 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983); Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Amchem Products Inc., 427 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Watson v. Lucerne Machinery & Equipment, Inc., 347 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1977).
Further, there can be no contention of vicarious liability through the acts of Environmental Services given the jury verdict exonerating Environmental Services from negligence. See Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1985). Nor can it reasonably be contended that Georgia-Pacific had the duty to warn users of its product that liquid soap is slippery. That is simply common sense.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 884 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…sistently held that a party may not be held vicariously liable if the tortfeasor is exonerated. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1995); Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1985); Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Reid, 501 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1987). Here, Gibson has alleged that Minchew, the tortfeasor, directly acted in a manner that caused damage to Gibson and that any liability on the part of ICE and Anderson flows from that act…
-
Sanders v. Am. Body Armor & Equip., Inc., 652 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…he absence of protection at the sides or abutment area of Armor’s vest was open and obvious and, therefore, no warning was required as a matter of law. Knox v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 554 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Georgiar-Pacific Corp. v. Reid, 501 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1987). We write only to clarify the matter of concurrent causes. The trial court’s directed verdict was based in part on the court’s reasoning that the bullet to Sanders’ chest in the abutmen…
-
Bastanzuri v. Garcia-Menendez Enters., Inc., 684 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 609 So. 2d 504 (Fla.1992); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Reid, 501 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1987); Perez v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 431 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983); Cohen v. General Motors Corp., 427 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Clark…
Authorities Cited
- Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985)
- Waltraud Mary Sexsmith Clark and Richard J. Clark v. The Boeing Co., 395 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Watson v. Lucerne Mach. & Equip., Inc., 347 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Perez v. Nat'l Presto Indus., Inc., 431 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Pimentel v. Iznaga, 431 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Talquin Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 427 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)