OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION AND COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
APECO CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
This case involves an appeal by Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) challenging a directed verdict granted to Apeco Corporation on Apeco's indemnity claim. The underlying lawsuit concerned injuries from a boating accident, with the plaintiff suing both OMC for a defective engine and Apeco for negligent boat design. The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict, finding no jury issue regarding Apeco's design liability.
No, the evidence was insufficient to raise a jury issue. The court found that the claimed inadequacy of the forward rail had no relationship to the plaintiff's injuries, which were solely caused by the defective engine supplied by OMC.
[1] A manufacturer has no duty to design a product to guard against violent accidents caused by the failure of a component part supplied by another entity.
[2] Evidence is insufficient to raise a jury issue regarding a boat's design as a contributing factor to an injury when the injury was proximately caused by a defect in the e…
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“Our review of the evidence convinces us that the trial court properly determined that the claimed inadequacy of the forward rail had no relationship to the injury of the plaintiff and that the defendant Apeco had no duty to design the boat in order to guard against the violent accident caused by the failure of the steering mechanism, which was a part of the engine supplied by Outboard Marine Corporation.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the directed verdict, emphasizing the lack of causal connection between the boat's design and the accident.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was injured in a boating accident, alleging the accident was caused by a defective engine supplied by Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) …
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 Design cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Outboard Marine Corporation from an order granting a directed verdict in favor of Apeco on Apeco’s cross-claim for indemnity against Outboard Marine Corporation. The plaintiff, who is not a party to this appeal, sued for damages for injuries suffered in a pleasure boating accident. The complaint charged defendant Outboard Marine Corporation and Apeco Corporation on separate counts for negligence. It was alleged that Outboard Marine Corporation had furnished an inboard-outboard engine which was defective and which caused the accident in which the plaintiff was injured. It was alleged that Apeco Corporation, as the manufacturer and assembler of the boat, had negligently failed to design the boat to provide for reasonable safety features.
At the trial, it appeared from the plaintiff’s evidence that the only proximate cause of the accident was the defect in the engine. Outboard Marine introduced the testimony of an expert witness who testified that in his opinion the boat should have had a longer and more efficient forward rail. The question presented is whether the evidence was sufficient to raise a jury issue that the design of the boat was a contributing factor to the injury of the plaintiff. Our review of the evidence convinces us that the trial court properly determined that the claimed inadequacy of the forward rail had no relationship to the injury of the plaintiff and that the defendant Apeco had no duty to design the boat in order to guard against the violent accident caused by the failure of the steering mechanism, which was a part of the engine supplied by Outboard Marine Corporation. See Matthews v. Lawnlite Company, 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1956); Green v. American Tobacco Company, 154 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1963); and Royal v. Black and Decker Manufacturing Company, 205 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
The appellant has also assigned error upon the court’s order awarding attorney’s fees and taxing costs but no independent argument is directed to this order, and we find no error upon the order. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rubin v. Brutus Corp. & Galaxy Boat Mfg. Co., Inc., 487 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ach any legal duty owed to plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants on the express ruling that “the crashworthiness doctrine does not apply to pleasure boats in this state”, citing Outboard Marine Corp. v. Apeco Corp., 348 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Plaintiff has appealed this ruling. We first deal with the law to be applied in determining liability. Appellee Galaxy contends, and plaintiff now agrees, that federal maritime law, not state law, governs the liability issue in…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Surf Props., Inc., 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1956)
- Green v. The Am. Tobacco Co., 154 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1963)
- Lona Mae Royal v. The Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 205 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)