TEREX CORPORATION, KOEHRING CRANES, ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL T. BELL AND LAURIE BELL, HIS WIFE, 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.
Terex Corporation appeals a jury verdict finding it 43% negligent in a personal injury case arising from a crane accident. The appellate court reverses, finding the verdict internally inconsistent because the jury found no design defect but awarded damages based on negligence, with no other evidence of negligence presented at trial.
The verdict is reversed because it is internally inconsistent. The jury's finding that the crane was not defective when placed on the market, combined with the absence of any other evidence of negligence by Terex, cannot support a negligence verdict against the manufacturer.
[1] A jury verdict is inconsistent when it finds a defendant negligent but also finds that the product causing the injury was not defective, absent other evidence of negligen…
[2] A judgment based on an inconsistent jury verdict must be reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The jury found that the crane which injured appellee was not defective when appellant placed it on the market and there was no other evidence of negligence by appellant.”
Establishes the factual basis for finding the verdict internally inconsistent—jury rejected defect theory but still found negligence with no alternative basis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Bell was operating a crane sold by Terex to the U.S. Air Force in 1988 when he was struck on the head by a raised plexiglass lid that fell whi…
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
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant, Terex Corporation, Koehring Cranes, timely appeals an amended final judgment in favor of appellees, Michael and Laura Bell, based upon a jury verdict.
This case arose from an accident which occurred when appellee, Michael Bell, was operating a crane sold by appellant to the United States Air Force in 1988. The evidence at trial showed that the accident occurred while he was standing up in the crane’s cab with his head protruding through the open roof when the raised plexiglass lid fell and hit him on the head. Appellee suffered a herniated cervical disk from the accident as a result of which he and his wife, Laurie Bell, sued appellant for negligence, strict liability and loss of consortium. Following a jury trial, the jury found that appellant was 43% negligent but that it had not placed a defective crane on the market. It also found appellee, Michael Bell, 57% negligent. We reverse based upon the inconsistent jury verdict. The jury found that the crane which injured appellee was not defective when appellant placed it on the market and there was no other evidence of negligence by appellant. Because the only evidence of negligence offered against appellant at trial related to its alleged negligent design and the jury found there was no design defect, there was no other evidence to sustain its verdict. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for entry of a judgment in favor of appellant. See also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Lenz, 669 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 6th DCA), rev. den., 679 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1996); North American Catamaran Racing Ass’n, Inc. (NACRA) v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. den., 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986). See also Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 455 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1984).
REVERSED and REMANDED
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Southland Corp. v. Crane, 699 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…69 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 679 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1996); North American Catamaran Racing Ass’n, Inc. (NACRA) v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); see also Terex Corp. v. Bell, 689 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Skon v. Milstead, 541 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In the instant case, the verdict is clearly contradictory in that the jury found negligence on the part of the plaintiff which was a legal, cause of her damage but then proc…
-
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Alvarez, 891 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…only evidence of negligence that the Alvarezes presented at trial related to the design defect, then the jury could not have found Nissan liable for negligence while finding that the vehicle did not contain a design defect. In Terex Corp. v. Bell, 689 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the plaintiff and his wife brought suit after he was injured operating a crane, which had been sold by the defendant. The jury found that the crane was not defective, but held the defendant 43% negligent. Id. On appeal, the fift…
Authorities Cited
- N. Am. Catamaran Racing Ass'n v. McCOLLISTER, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Lenz, 669 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)