ARMOR ELEVATOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUANITA R. WOOD, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF HENRY WOOD, DECEASED, 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.
In this wrongful death action, Armor Elevator Company and its insurer appealed a jury verdict finding breach of implied warranty of fitness for a locking device that failed during elevator installation, causing the decedent's death. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff need not pinpoint the exact mechanical deficiency to prove the device was defective.
The court held that no reversible error occurred and affirmed the judgment. The plaintiff was not required to pinpoint any exact mechanical deficiency to prove breach of implied warranty; substantial evidence supported a finding that the locking device was defective when it failed to perform its intended function. The regulation on temporary elevator use was not applicable to the installation process.
[1] A breach of implied warranty of fitness occurs when a product fails to perform its intended purpose or function due to a defect in design, construction, or inherent capac…
[2] In a breach of warranty action, a plaintiff is not required to pinpoint the exact mechanical deficiency that caused a product's failure.
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“The plaintiff was not under a duty to pin point any exact mechanical deficiency for or by reason of which the device proved defective and failed, and a jury charge to the contrary requested by the defendants was properly refused.”
Establishes the key holding that proof of defective performance is sufficient without identification of the specific mechanical cause of failure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring elevator installation on a construction project, a locking device supplied to hold the elevator in place while another cable was being attached…
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
CHARLES CARROLL, Associate Judge.
The defendants Armor Elevator Company and its liability insurer appeal from an adverse judgment in a wrongful death action. Recovery was predicated on breach of implied warranty of fitness of a locking device provided by the elevator company, which failed when put into use.
On a construction project, in the course of the installation of an elevator, in which the plaintiff’s decedent and others were engaged, after the elevator had been hoisted part way up in its well, it became necessary to lock it into position for the purpose of affixing another cable with which to continue the lifting thereof. The locking device supplied for such purpose of holding the elevator in place was set. It failed. The elevator fell. The decedent, standing upon the same, was killed. A jury verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered thereon, and this appeal ensued.
We hold no reversible error has been shown. The court correctly denied defendants’ motions for directed verdict. There was competent substantial evidence upon which the jury could, and no doubt did find the warranty was breached where the locking device or machinery failed when called upon to perform its purpose or function, and thereby was defective in design, construction or other inherent capacity. The plaintiff was not under a duty to pin point any exact mechanical deficiency for or by reason of which the device proved defective and failed, and a jury charge to the contrary requested by the defendants was properly refused. Ford Motor Company v. Cochran, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 551; Ford Motor Company v. Pittman, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 246; McCarthy v. Florida Ladder Company, Fla. App.1974, 295 So. 2d 707; Vandercook & Son, Inc. v. Thorpe, 5 Cir.1968, 395 F. 2d 104. The court correctly recognized that Florida Department regulation 8A-S-12.19, relating to “Temporary use of Elevators”, was applicable to temporary use of elevators which had been installed and placed in temporary use as such, and was not applicable to the process of the installation of elevators. The jury charges were properly tailored to issues presented.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Pittman, 227 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- City OF Niceville v. McCULLOUGH, 295 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Cochran, 205 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Vandercook & SON, Inc. v. Thorpe, 395 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1968)