GENERAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

TEL SERVICE CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, G. E. GRASS AND RICHARD A. NOLL, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Buckner v. Allergan Pharms., Inc., 400 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
  …ialities to the ultimate consumer, as was applied to a distributor of carbon tetrachloride in Tampa Drug Company v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1958), and to a manufacturer of a lead arsenic insecticide spray in Edwards v. California Chemical Company, 245 So. 2d 259 (Fla.4th DCA), cert. denied, 247 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1971). Appellant cites Lake v. Konstantinu, 189 So. 2d 171 (Fla.2d DCA 1966), as authority for the proposition that allegations that the manufacturer of a prescription drug failed to adequately warn…
• Dayton Tire & Rubber Co. v. Davis, 348 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
  …dangerous. That definition remains viable. (See e. g. Walker v. National Gun Traders, Inc., 116 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 149 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); and Edwards v. California Chemical Company, 245 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).) It follows that in order to properly label a commodity inherently dangerous, it must be dangerous in and of itself. The fact that it becomes dangerous due to a defect does not necessarily make the product an inherently dangero…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Mathis v. Nat'l Labs., 355 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
  …, and are properly vested with the trier of fact, in this case, the jury, and thus, determination of said issues by way of summary judgment is not proper. Tampa Drug Company v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1958); Edwards v. California Chemical Company, 245 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. den. 247 So. 2d 440 (Fla.). The-trial court’s reliance upon our decision in Wickham v. Baltimore Copper Paint Company, supra, is misplaced, as there, “the issue of the adequacy of the warning on the label was not a materi…