WESTINGHOUSE CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CATHERINE RUIZ, AS NEXT FRIEND OF NIKOLAS RUIZ, A MINOR, AND CATHERINE RUIZ AND JAMES RUIZ, AS PARENTS OF NIKOLAS RUIZ, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
A contract action for breach of implied warranty does not lie where there is no privity of contract between the parties.
A four-year-old child suffered lacerations from a department store escalator. The store settled, and the child's parents sued the escalator manufactur…
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 Strict Liability In Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
A department store escalator caused third-degree lacerations to the left hand of four-year-old Nikolas Ruiz. Two facts are not disputed; (1) neither Nikolas nor his mother was negligent, and (2) the escalator was under the exclusive control of the department store, J.C. Penney. The store settled with the appellants for $10,000 and was never a party to this action.
The complaint against Westinghouse, the manufacturer of the escalator, was based on theories of implied warranty, strict liability, and negligence. At the commencement of trial the plaintiffs abandoned the causes of action based on strict liability and negligence, and proceeded with the suit on a single cause of action for breach of implied warranty. The jury returned an $8,000 plaintiffs’ verdict.
One of several issues raised by Westinghouse is that the plaintiffs cannot recover against Westinghouse because, as between the parties, there was no privity of contract. We agree. The doctrine of strict liability in tort supplants all no-privity, breach of implied warranty cases. A contract action for breach of implied warranty does not lie where there is no privity of contract. Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1988).1
REVERSED.
. Kramer was decided on a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit two weeks after the circuit court entered its judgment in this cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
High v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 559 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…o appeal is taken from interlocutory orders dismissing other counts of the complaint based on theories of breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. See Westinghouse Corp. v. Ruiz, 537 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (doctrine of strict liability in torts supplants all no-privity breach of implied warranty cases). The action continues against FP & L and Pepper’s. . On December 8, 1977, FP & L and Pepper’s signed a written “Junk Transformer Ag…
Authorities Cited
- Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1988)