A. E. FINLEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERMAN S. MEDLEY, APPELLEE
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.
A. E. Finley and Associates, Inc., manufacturer and assembler of a portable rock crusher, appeals a jury verdict finding it liable for injuries sustained by an operator when the machine failed due to improper design and assembly. The Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence of defective design and manufacture presented a jury question on liability.
The trial court correctly denied the directed verdict motion because, when evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, defendant's liability was a jury question. The nature of the machine's failure, combined with evidence of improper design and manufacture, provided a reasonable basis for the jury to find the machine was a potentially dangerous instrument, making the manufacturer liable for resulting bodily harm.
“A review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff convinces us that the trial judge correctly determined that the defendant's liability was a jury question.”
Establishes the standard of review for directed verdict motions and affirms the trial court's determination that liability was properly submitted to the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSherman S. Medley was injured while operating a portable rock crusher that had been sold through a distribution chain: A. E. Finley manufactured and a…
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 Negligent Manufacture cases and more on FLexlaw
These two appeals were consolidated for purposes of oral argument. The first is an appeal from a final judgment in a personal injury action and the second is an appeal from a subsequently entered cost judgment in the same action. A. E. Finley and Associates, Inc. is appellant in each appeal.1
A. E. Finley was one of three defendants in an action brought by Sherman S. Medley for injuries sustained by Medley while working on a portable rock crusher. Medley’s complaint alleged that A. E. Finley and Associates, Inc. negligently manufactured, designed or furnished the machinery which caused his injury. The Florida-Georgia Tractor Company, Inc. and Brans-field and White, Inc. were also named in the complaint as defendants. The rock crusher was sold to Medley’s employer by Bransfield and White, Inc. That defendant had purchased the machine from A. E. Finley and Associates, the defendant-appellant. The defendant, Florida-Georgia Tractor Company, sold to defendant-appellant the power take-off and motor which operated the crusher.
The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendant Bransfield (distributor). Thereafter, at the close of plaintiff’s case, the court directed a verdict for the defendant, Florida-Georgia Tractor Company (supplier of the power unit). Appellant, A. E. Finley and Associates, moved for a directed verdict and their motion was denied.
The jury returned a verdict against the appellant and subsequently judgment was entered thereon. The judge denied the post trial motions and entered a cost judgment for $698.36 against the appellant.
Appellant’s primary point on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing its motion for directed verdict upon liability. A review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff 2 convinces us that the trial judge correctly determined that the defendant’s liability was a jury question.
It is unnecessary to lengthen this opinion by a full discussion of all the evidence which was properly submitted to the jury. There was evidence that the machine was improperly assembled both as to engineering design and a consideration of the reasonable safety of the operator. The accident occurred when Medley, who was attending the machine, heard the motor choking down and went on to the machine’s catwalk in order to disengage the clutch. The machine failed and the drive shaft bent upward throwing an attached pulley through the wire mesh catwalk. Medley was struck and severely injured.
The nature of the failure of the machine, taken in relation to the evidence of improper design and manufacture, is sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for the finding of the jury that the machine was a potentially dangerous instrument to the operator; thus making the manufacturer liable for bodily harm resulting therefrom. Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 299. The appellant as the assembler of the rock crusher is correctly considered its manufacturer. Sheward v. Virtue, 20 Cal.2d 410, 126 P.2d 345; Sieracki v. Seas Shipping Co., 149 F.2d 98 (3rd Cir. 1945).
We have considered appellant’s points directed to the discharge from the action of its co-defendants and hold that the rulings were not inconsistent with the court’s denial of the appellant’s motion for directed verdict and did not affect the question of appellant’s liability.
Appellant’s point directed to the cost judgment not having been argued was abandoned. Rule 3.7(i), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 149 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…n the manufactured product attributable to the negligence of the manufacturer, is followed by the courts of this state. Matthews v. Lawnlite, supra; Rawls v. Ziegler, Fla.1958, 107 So. 2d 601; A. E. Finley & Associates, Inc. v. Medley, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 613. Compare Carter v. Hector Supply Co., Fla.1961, 128 So. 2d 390; McBurnette v. Playground Equipment Co., Fla. 1962, 137 So. 2d 563. Lastly, as noted supra, the issue of whether or not the failure, if any, on the part of the defendant to exercise due…
-
Ernestine A. King v. Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., 159 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed with directions. . 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916). . See Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 299; A. E. Finley and Associates, Inc. v. Medley, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 613. . See A. E. Finley and Associates, Inc. v. Medley, supra; Boeing Airplane Co. v. Brown, 291 F. 2d 310 (9th Cir.1961); Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400, 171 N.Y.S.2d 770 (1958) aff’d, 5 N.Y.2d 958, 184 N.Y.S.2d 835, 157 N.E. 2d 713 (1959) ; Wojciuk…
-
Cent. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Banner Trading Co., Inc., 157 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…judgment, no point was made on the appeal addressed to these assignments of error and, therefore, said assignments are deemed abandoned. 'See: Ramsey v. Aronson, Fla.App.1957, 99 So. 2d 643; A. E. Finley and Associates, Inc. v. Medley, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 613; Rule 3.7, subd. i, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. The only question preserved for review by this court was the propriety of the finding by the chancellor of the liability of the bank to Banner for the loss of profits it would have made on the 4…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Surf Props., Inc., 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1956)
- Bourgeois v. Dade Cnty., 99 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1956)
- Sieracki v. Seas Shipping Co., Inc., 149 F.2d 98 (3d Cir. 1945)
- Mellet v. Henry, 108 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)