LAWRENCE ARENSON, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEE A. HOLMAN, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 plaintiff who has recovered and satisfied a judgment against a retailer for negligence in installing a component part cannot relitigate the same breach of duty against the manufacturer of that part.
[1] A plaintiff who has recovered a judgment against a retailer for negligence in the installation of a component part and received satisfaction of that judgment may not reli…
[2] A prior judgment and satisfaction against a retailer for a defective product bars a subsequent suit against the manufacturer of the product for the same injury.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff recovered a judgment against an automobile dealer for injuries due to brake failure, which was satisfied. The manufacturer of the automobile…
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
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from a final summary judgment in favor of appellee entered upon remand of the case to the trial court. See Holman v. Ford Motor Company, 239 So.2d 40 (Fla.App.1st, 1970).
It appears from the record that in another suit appellant herein recovered a $5,000.00 judgment from retailer Duval Motor Company for injuries sustained by Lee A. Holman, Sr. when his Ford automobile had a sudden brake failure. In the instant case and upon remand, the appellee, Ford Motor Company, filed as an additional defense the above-mentioned judgment and satisfaction thereof by Duval Motor Company. Final summary judgment based upon this additional defense was thereafter entered, and this appeal results.
Appellant states his point on appeal to be as follows: May an injured plaintiff sue, recover and satisfy a judgment against an automobile dealer for negligence in the installation of a component part and then sue and recover against the manufacturer of that part under an allegation of negligent manufacture ?
As noted above, the trial court answered such question negatively by granting a summary judgment in appellee’s favor. We agree, for we cannot factually and legally distinguish the circumstances of this case from the recent case of Escambia Chemical Corp. v. Industrial-Marine Supply Co., Inc., 238 So.2d 684 (Fla.App.1st, 1970). Having pursued Duval Motor Company to a final judgment and having received satisfaction of said judgment, appellant may not now relitigate the same breach of duty against appellee. See Restatement of the Law, Judgments, § 95.
We have considered appellant’s allegation concerning the “law of the case” with regard to our previous denial of appellee’s motion to dismiss which was based upon the same ground as was its additional defense below, and find such contention to be substantially without merit.
The trial judge correctly entered a final summary judgment in favor of appellee, and that judgment is affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mlenak v. Faber, 408 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…claim against the retail seller of the machine, which litigation had been terminated by offer of judgment, acceptance and satisfaction. We affirm on the authority of Phillips v. Hall, 297 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Arenson v. Ford Motor Co., 254 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Escambia Chemical Corporation v. Industrial-Marine Supply Company, 238 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); 34 A.L.R. 520; and 91 A:L.R.3d 1170. AFFIRMED. MOORE and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired) Associate…
-
Miller v. Esca Rosa Dev. Corp., 284 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…ate beginning with The Hertz Corp. v. Hellens, 140 So. 2d 73 (2 D.C.A.1962), case and a long line of decisions thereafter.” By his brief and in his argument before this Court, plaintiff urges that this Court’s decisions in Arenson v. Ford Motor Co., 254 So. 2d 812 (1 Fla.App.1971), and Escambia Chemical Corp. v. Industrial Marine Supply Co., 238 So. 2d 684 (1 Fla.App.1970), are in conflict with the intent of F.S. § 768.041, F.S.A., and that this Court should recede from these decisions. Numerous other citatio…
-
Weber v. Tam-Bay Realty, Inc., 490 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…r having been induced to buy the business was adjudicated in the prior suit. See Atlantic Cylinder Corp. v. Hetner, 438 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Russell v. A & L Development, Inc., 273 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Arenson v. Ford Motor Co., 254 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). See also Hinton v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co., 317 So. 2d 832, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (“Aside from the public policy considerations against the multiplicity of actions, there is a basic unfairness in permitting one party…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holman v. Ford Motor Co., 239 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Escambia Chem. Corp. v. Industrial-Marine Supply Co., Inc., 238 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)