WILLIAM THRASHER, APPELLANT,
v.
KOEHRING COMPANY AND SIMS CRANE SERVICE, INC., 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.
In a product liability action, a plaintiff's sworn proof of a crane's malfunction during normal operation creates a prima facie case of defect sufficient to defeat summary judgment, even without expert testimony to rebut the defendant's expert affidavit.
A defendant is not entitled to summary judgment in a product liability case when the plaintiff provides sworn evidence of malfunction during normal operation, as such malfunction creates a legal inference of defectiveness.
[1] A malfunction of a product during normal operation creates a legal inference of defectiveness sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and a plaintiff need not present…
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 intelligence“when a product malfunctions during normal operation, a legal inference, which is in effect a mirror reflection of the Restatement's standard of product defectiveness, arises, and the injured plaintiff thereby establishes a prima facie case for jury consideration”
Explaining the legal standard for inferring product defect from malfunction during normal use
Plaintiff was injured by a crane that was not negligently operated at the time of injury, but immediately after the accident the crane boom ran ten fe…
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
PER CURIAM.
Where the plaintiff in this product liability action gave sworn proof that (1) the crane which caused his injury was not negligently operated at the time of the injury, (2) immediately after the accident the crane boom “ran ten feet past the load,” evidencing an operational defect, and (3) cranes of that type have a history of intermittent malfunction, the defendant was not entitled to a summary judgment based on an affidavit of its expert that the crane was not defective. Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (it is immaterial that the plaintiff failed to identify the specific cause of the malfunction since it is inferred that the malfunction itself, under such circumstances, is evidence of the product’s defective condition), citing the rule from Greco v. Bucciconi Eng’g Co., 283 F.Supp. 978 (W.D.Pa.1967), aff'd, 407 F. 2d 87 (3d Cir.1969) (when a product malfunctions during normal operation, a legal inference, which is in effect a mirror reflection of the Restatement’s standard of product defectiveness, arises, and the injured plaintiff thereby establishes a prima facie case for jury consideration).
A plaintiff is not obligated to oppose a defendant’s expert testimony with testimony of his own expert in order to survive the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Connell v. Sledge, 306 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 336 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1976) (a party against whom a summary judgment is sought is not required to file a counter affidavit in order to defeat the motion).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 650 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…nc., 584 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA) (same), review denied, 592 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1991);5 Jones v. Heil Co., 566 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (same); Warner v. Sony Corp. of America, 560 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (same); Thrasher v. Koehring Co., 543 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (same); Diversified Products Corp. v. Faxon, 514 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (same); Marcus v. Anderson/Gore Homes, Inc., 498 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (same); Gen-corp, Inc. v. Wolfe, 481 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…
-
Bryant v. Robert S. Fisher, Inc., 599 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ert testimony.” The plaintiffs in this case presented evidence which directly conflicted with the expert testimony, thereby showing that a genuine issue of material fact existed. Summary judgment was therefore improper. See Thrasher v. Koehring Co., 543 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Reversed.…
-
Humphreys v. Gen. Motors Corp., 839 F. Supp. 822 (N.D. Fla. 1993)…ase. Florida courts have applied the Cassissi inference' in a variety of products liability cases. See e.g., Jones v. Heil Co., 566 So.2d 565, 567 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1990) (defective garbage truck); Thrasher v. Koehring Co., 543 So.2d 754 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1988) (defective construction crane); Marcus v. Anderson/Gore Homes, Inc., 498 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1986) (defective household hot water heater); Gencorp, Inc. v. Wolfe, 481 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1st…
Authorities Cited
- Cassisi v. The Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Grady Scott Connell v. Sledge, 306 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Greco v. Bucciconi Eng'g Co., Inc., 407 F.2d 87 (3d Cir. 1969)