PETER J. SALOZZO, APPELLANT,
v.
WAGNER SPRAY TECH CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adequacy Of Warning cases and more on FLexlaw
[*394] PER CURIAM.
Upon the conclusion that the record presents jury questions as to whether the defendant-appellee manufacturer adequately warned potential users against the dangers of a foreseeable method of operating its paint spray gun, the judgment entered below on a directed verdict in its favor is reversed. See Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1958); Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter, 478 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1986); American Cyanamid Co. v. Roy, 466 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), approved in part, quashed in part on other grounds, 498 So. 2d 859 (Fla.1986); Noel v. Ecker & Co., 445 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Edwards v. California Chemical Co., 245 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 247 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1971); Billiar v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 623 F. 2d 240 (2d Cir.1980); Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F. 2d 79 (4th Cir.1962); Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 685 P. 2d 218 (Colo.App.1984), aff’d, 723 P. 2d 1322 (Colo.1986); Marshall v. Beno Truck Equip. Co., 481 So. 2d 1022 (La.App.1985), cert. denied, 482 So. 2d 620 (La.1986); cf. Prather v. Upjohn Co., 797 F. 2d 923 (11th Cir.1986) (verdict properly directed on strict liability theory; negligent warning issue submitted to jury).
While we agree that the plaintiffs proposed expert testimony was properly excluded, expert evidence was not required to permit a jury conclusion that the warnings provided were inadequate, improperly located, or both. Streich v. Hilton-Davis, 214 Mont. 44, 692 P. 2d 440 (1984); Macri v. Ames McDonough Co., 211 N.J.Super. 636, 512 A. 2d 548 (1986).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maritza Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Mfg. Co., 816 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…of the danger, the sufficiency and reasonableness of a manufacturer’s [*1140] warnings are questions of fact which are best left to the jury unless the warnings are accurate, clear, and unambiguous. Id.; see also Salozzo v. Wagner Spray Tech. Corp., 578 So. 2d 393, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Marchant v. Dayton Tire & Rubber Co., 836 F. 2d 695, 701 (1st Cir.1988); see generally Vega v. City of Pompano Beach, 551 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In Brito, we concluded that the suggestion that only a qualified pers…
-
Brown v. Glade & Grove Supply, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…sitive of the adequacy of the warnings for several reasons. A warning may be defective not only by virtue of inadequate wording, but as a result of its location and the manner in which the warning is conveyed. See Salozzo v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., 578 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). For example, even if the language contained in the instruction manual adequately apprised a user of the dangers, a jury could find the warning defective because it was not permanently affixed to the tractor. See, e.g., Lopez v. S…
-
Lopez v. S. Coatings, Inc., 580 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ine that the insufficient warnings were or were not a legal cause of the damages sued upon. See Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Corp., 552 F.Supp. 1293 (D.D.C.1982), aff’d, 736 F. 2d 1529 (D.C.Cir.1984). See generally Salozzo v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., 578 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In addition, the court’s partial affirmance makes it necessary to reach the blatant improprieties in the manner in which the summary judgment was considered and granted. On the authority of such cases as Stanley v. Beilis, 311…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958)
- Am. Cyanamid Co. v. ROY, 498 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1986)
- Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, 308 F.2d 79 (4th Cir. 1962)
- Billiar v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 623 F.2d 240 (2d Cir. 1980)
- Gen. Cap. Corp. v. TEL Serv. Co., Inc., 245 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Advance Chem. Co. v. Harter, 478 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Am. Cyanamid Co. v. ROY, 466 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Noel v. M. Ecker & Co. & Carpentry Collaborative, Inc., 445 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Cal. Chem. Co. v. Ivy Edwards, 247 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1971)
- Creighton v. State, 247 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1971)