MANLEY-DEBOER LUMBER COMPANY, MANLEY-DEBOER LUMBER COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND MANLEY-DEBOER, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION AND GEORGIA-PACIFIC PRODUCTS, 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 this product liability case, the court affirmed summary judgment for lumber suppliers Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Georgia-Pacific Products, Inc., holding that the plaintiff failed to establish which supplier provided the defective lumber that allegedly caused his injury, relying impermissibly on layered inferences rather than direct evidence.
Summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff could not identify which of multiple suppliers provided the lumber at issue without relying on an impermissible pyramiding of inferences, and a plaintiff in a product liability case must establish that the product causing injury was manufactured or sold by the defendant.
[1] A plaintiff cannot establish liability against a supplier of a product when there is no evidence identifying which of multiple suppliers provided the product at issue.
[2] A plaintiff cannot establish the defective nature of a product when such a determination would require impermissibly pyramiding inferences from circumstantial evidence.
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“if a party to a civil action depends upon inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact, it cannot construct a further inference upon the initial inference in order to establish a further fact unless it can be found that the original, basic inference was established to exclusion of all other reasonable inferences”
Establishes the rule against pyramiding inferences that the court applied to reject plaintiff's theory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was injured while sawing a piece of lumber purchased from Manley-Deboer retailers when a metal object embedded in the lumber dislodged and s…
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 Pyramiding Of Inferences cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
In this product liability action, Manley-Deboer Lumber Company, Manley-De-boer Lumber Company Limited Partnership, and Manley-Deboer, Inc., referred to collectively herein as the retailer, appeal the final summary judgment issued in favor of Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Georgia-Pacific Products, Inc., the alleged suppliers of lumber which plaintiff claimed caused his injury.
Plaintiff maintained below that he was sawing a piece of lumber purchased from the retailer when a metal object embedded within the lumber dislodged, struck and injured him. The plaintiff brought suit against the retailer as well as a number of the suppliers which had supplied lumber to the retailer. With no evidence as to which of at least three suppliers had distributed the lumber at issue, or the condition of that lumber when it left the supplier, only by an impermissible pyramiding of inferences could the supplier of the lumber at issue be identified and the defective nature of that lumber be established.
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review. See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731, 733 (Fla.1960)(observing that “if a party to a civil action depends upon inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact, it cannot construct a further inference upon the initial inference in order to establish a further fact unless it can be found that the original, basic inference was established to exclusion of all other reasonable inferences”); Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle, 853 So. 2d 434, 467 n. 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(“It is aphoristic that a plaintiff cannot prevail on claims for negligence, breach of warranty or strict liability, unless the plaintiff establishes that the product which allegedly caused the plaintiffs injury was manufactured or sold by the defendant”); Mahl v. Dade Pipe and Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., 546 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)(“It is axiomatic that summary judgment may be entered whenever the pleadings, affidavits, depositions or other factual showings reveal there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Port Auth. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Keller, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)
- Nielsen v. City OF Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)
- Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Howard A. Engle, M.D., 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Mahl v. Dade Pipe & Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., 546 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)