LEVERT LINDER AND EMMA JEAN LINDER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., 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.
Appellants Linder appealed a negligence verdict, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to give jury instructions on strict liability in tort. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that Florida has not adopted strict liability doctrine and that the conveyor manufacturer was not responsible for design and installation of safety features that were the customer's responsibility.
The court held that Florida has not adopted the doctrine of strict liability in tort, and therefore the trial court properly refused the requested instructions. The manufacturer was not responsible for designing or installing the cut-off switch because the customer, St. Regis, assumed the duty of designing and installing the electrical system and controls.
[1] A manufacturer is not liable for defects in electrical wiring and controls if the customer assumed the duty of designing and installing those components.
[2] A plaintiff's expert opinion regarding industry practice is insufficient to establish a manufacturer's liability when the evidence shows the customer was responsible for…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 uncontroverted evidence in this record reflects that Combustion was not required to nor did design or install any of the electrical wiring utilized in the installation of the salt cake conveyor.”
Establishes that the manufacturer had no responsibility for electrical system design or installation, which was the customer's duty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLevert Linder, an employee of St. Regis Paper Company, was operating a salt conveyor manufactured by Combustion Engineering that had been delivered in…
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 Industry Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
Appellants’ primary grievance with the trial court in this negligence action is that it refused to give two requested instructions to the jury. In support of this contention, appellants argue that the doctrine of strict liability has gained acceptance in Florida. 'The basic facts are not controverted. Appellant Linder, an employee of St. Regis Paper Company, was assigned to tend a salt conveyor in the liquid pulp section of the St. Regis plant in Jacksonville. One of his duties was to remove and weigh salt in order to determine the speed of the flow in the machine. This task was accomplished by Linder pulling out a slide gate located immediately under a screw in the bottom of the casing and allowing the salt to fall into a bucket. At some undetermined time, the gate had developed a leak, and the employees found it helpful to stuff a rag into the gate to prevent the leakage. Linder reached in through the slide gate, at which time the screw caught his fingers and pulled his right arm into the conveyor. The result of this accident caused Linder to lose his arm. No cut-off switch had been installed on the conveyor or within approximately forty feet thereof.
The subject conveyor was manufactured by appellee, Combustion Engineering Company, and delivered to St. Regis in 1957. Testimony is that Combustion did not install the machine and:
“ . . . In a project of this type there are many different suppliers supplying equipment to written specifications by either the customer or the customer’s consulting engineer, and the equipment is supplied in accordance with those specifications. The wiring and controls were outside the supply of the boiler manufacturer.” [Emphasis supplied]
The uncontroverted evidence in this record reflects that Combustion was not required to nor did design or install any of the electrical wiring utilized in the installation of the salt cake conveyor. The fact that an expert witness opined that: “ . . . it is the practice in the industry where you have dangerous machines, to have the cutoff switch readily available to the operators so, in case of an emergency, it can be shut down.”, is not sufficient to cast this responsibility upon Combustion in light of the uncontroverted fact that St. Regis assumed the duty of designing and installing the electrical system.
Appellant’s contention that the doctrine of strict liability in tort has gained acceptance in Florida is primarily founded upon the dictum recited in the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Keller v. Eagle Army-Navy Department Stores, Inc., 291 So. 2d 58 (4 Fla.App.1974). This Court in Lipsius v. Bristol-Myers Company, 265 So. 2d 396 (1 Fla.App.1972) expressly rejected the doctrine of strict liability, and we are not now persuaded to do otherwise.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
JOHNSON and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levert Linder and Emma Jean Linder v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 342 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1977)…ADKINS, Justice. By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Linder v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 315 So. 2d 199), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Keller v. Eagle Army-Navy Department Stores, Inc., 291 So. 2d 58), on the same point of law. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. As wil…
Authorities Cited
- Turner v. State, 291 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Keller v. Eagle Army-Navy Dep't Stores, Inc., 291 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Lipsius v. Bristol-Myers Co., 265 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)