FORTE TOWERS SOUTH, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HILL YORK SALES CORP., A FLORIDA 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.
Forte Towers South and related parties appealed a directed verdict entered in favor of Hill York Sales Corporation, which had installed a defective air conditioning system. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of negligence and breach of implied warranty to survive the directed verdict motion and warranting submission to a jury.
The court held that the plaintiffs presented ample evidence of both negligence and breach of implied warranty to establish a prima facie case, and that the case should have been submitted to the jury rather than decided by directed verdict. The court further held that the rule limiting contractor liability after project acceptance does not apply when the defect is latent and not discoverable by reasonable inspection, and that an air conditioning system carries an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability.
[1] A directed verdict for the defendant is reversible error when there is substantial evidence tending to prove an issue upon which a judge could lawfully find for the plain…
[2] Evidence of a defective air conditioning system, including a bypassed capillary bulb, a partially connected pipe, insufficient condensing water, and defective control swi…
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 intelligence“When there is substantial evidence tending to prove an issue upon which the judge could lawfully find for a plaintiff, it is reversible error to direct a verdict for the defendant.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing directed verdicts and the error in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHill York Sales Corporation was contracted in 1966 to design and install an air conditioning system in the Forte Towers South apartment building on Mi…
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 Implied Warranty Of Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
Forte Towers South, Inc., Arkin Construction Company, Inc., and the Travelers Insurance Company, plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal from a directed verdict entered at the conclusion of the presentation of their case in a jury trial.
The question is whether the evidence presented by the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of negligence and breach of warranty.
The evidence disclosed that Hill York Sales Corporation, defendant, was contracted by Arkin Construction Company in 1966, to design and install the air conditioning system in the Forte Towers South apartment building on Miami Beach. Further evidence disclosed that in 1969 and 1970, certain water lines to individual apartments ruptured on several occasions causing damage to carpeting, flooring and furnishings. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses testified that the air conditioning unit was defective in that when leakage began, the capillary bulb, which opens circuits and shuts down the pumps when water temperature rises, had to be bypassed; that one of the pipes was only partly connected by a three-thread turn; that there was an insufficient supply of condensing water; and that the control switches were defective, a defect not disclosed by ordinary inspection. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and then entered final judgment for the defendant. This appeal ensued.
Hill York contends that the directed verdict was proper since the plaintiffs’ general contractor and architect inspected and approved the air conditioning system, and that no evidence of negligence or of breach of implied warranty had been presented. When there is substantial evidence tending to prove an issue upon which the judge could lawfully find for a plaintiff, it is re /ersible error to direct a verdict for the defendant. Powell v. Jackson Grain Company, 1938, 134 Fla. 596, 184 So.
492.
We find that there was ample evidence of both negligence and breach of implied warranty to establish a prima facie case. The plaintiffs’ case warranted submission to the jury and should have survived the motion for directed verdict. The defendant cites City National Bank of Miami v. Chitwood Construction Company, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 234, as authority for the proposition that contractors are not liable for damages from negligent installa tion occurring after the contractor has completed the work and turned the project over to the owner or employer and it has been approved and accepted by him or his agent.
We find, however, that this rule has limitations and is not applicable to the situation sub judice, where the defect is latent and not discoverable by a reasonably careful inspection. See Slavin v. Kay, Fla.1959, 108 So. 2d 462. In addition, an air conditioning system which is attached and immovable carries an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability even when it is sold with an express warranty which purports to limit the guarantee to one year. Gable v. Silver, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 11.
Therefore, the directed verdict for the defendant and the final judgment entered pursuant thereto, are reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drexel Props., Inc. v. BAY Colony Club Condo., Inc., 406 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…case involved a malfunctioning air conditioning system under an expired express warranty. The Gable opinion reached no decision as to subsequent purchasers but observed: [*518] Page 18. See, also, Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So. 2d 512 (Fla, 3d DCA 1975). Wittington Condominium Apartments, Inc. v. Braemar Corporation, 313 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), was a class action for negligent construction and breach of contract. In a footnote 5 the court stated that implied warranty ext…
-
Simmons v. Owens, 363 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…xception that a contractor is not relieved of liability where he creates a dangerous condition or unreasonable risk which is latent and not discoverable by reasonable inspection. Sla-vin, supra. In Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So. 2d 512 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), the initial building owner brought suit against the contractor for negligent construction. It was alleged that the contractor negligently installed an air conditioning system. The defect was latent and was not discoverable by reas…
-
Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. & Fred F. Womble, 363 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…condition was one which was not discoverable by inspection. The holding in Slavin has been followed by a number of more recent decisions, e. g., Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, 205 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1967); Forte-Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Here the offending omission from the abstract was no more discoverable by the tax collector than was the d…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Slavin v. Sanford KAY, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1958)
- Gable v. Silver, 258 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Powell v. Jackson Grain Co., 134 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1938)
- City Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Chitwood Constr. Co., Inc., 210 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)