KELLER LADDERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, N/K/A KLI, INC., KELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., AND ITS SUCCESSORS, APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE MCCORMACK AND DEBORAH MCCORMACK, 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.
Keller Ladders' successor corporation KLI, Inc. is liable for a defective ladder injury under successor liability doctrine, and the trial court properly admitted expert testimony comparing the incident ladder to an exemplar.
A successor corporation may be held liable for a predecessor's defective product where the successor expressly or impliedly assumes the predecessor's obligations, and expert testimony comparing an incident ladder to an exemplar ladder is admissible when grounded in underlying data.
[1] A successor corporation may be held liable for a predecessor corporation's product liability obligations where the successor expressly or impliedly assumes the predecesso…
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 intelligenceGeorge and Deborah McCormack were injured by a defective ladder manufactured by Keller Ladders, Inc., which later became KLI, Inc. The trial court fou…
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.
Keller Ladders, Inc., n/k/a KLI, Inc. appeals from a final judgment in a personal injury case involving a defective ladder. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that KLI was the responsible party, in light of the November 14, 2002 answers to interrogatories, the pretrial stipulation, and the manner in which the case was litigated and tried. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b) & (c); Bernard v. Kee Mfg., Co., 409 So. 2d 1047 (Fla.1982) (stating that a predecessor corporation’s liability may be imposed on a successor corporation where the successor expressly or impliedly assumes the obligations of the predecessor); see also Sexton v. Panning Lumber Co., 260 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); B & H Sales, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 342 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Argenbright v. J.M. Fields Co., 196 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of the plaintiffs expert, Dr. Morse. He examined both the incident ladder and an exemplar ladder against which to compare his results. Therefore, his opinion was grounded in underlying data. See Carnival Corp. v. Stowers, 834 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Any conflict between Morse’s testimony and the plaintiffs went to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bernard v. KEE Mfg. Co., Inc., 409 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1982)
- Argenbright v. J. M. Fields Co., 196 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Sexton v. Panning Lumber Co., 260 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- B & H Sales, Inc. v. The Fusco Corp., 342 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Carnival Corp. v. Stowers, 834 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)