SADIE R. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,

v.

SURF PROPERTIES, INC., T/B/D BELMAR HOTEL, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (59 total)

• West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)
  …he elimination of privity when the product involved was dangerous or an inherently dangerous instrumentality. See Hicks & Sternlieb, Products Warranty Law in Florida — A Realistic Overview, 25 U.Miami L.Rev. 241 (1971); and Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1956). The court stated in Keller v. Eagle Army-Navy Dept. Stores, Inc., 291 So. 2d 58, 60 (Fla.App. 4th 1974): “Florida has long recognized that certain instrumentalities are ‘dangerous in-strumentalities’ per se, such as an automobile driven…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1985)
  …e to liability for manufacturing of a product. Justice McDonald, in maintaining the constitutional validity of section 95.031(2) in his dissenting opinion in Bat til-la, correctly reasoned as follows: Until the decision of Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1956), Florida recognized the early common law rule which inhibited recovery where ' there was no privity of contract. Since then the law of products liability has evolved to the point that we now recog [*660] nize liability of a manufacturer w…
• A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1973)
  …ing personal injury are seen as “products liability” and, therefore, distinguishable cases. The contractor maintains a viable cause of action exists, notwithstanding a lack of privity, by virtue of the following decisions: Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1956); Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, 205 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1967); Audlane Lbr. & Bldrs. Sup. v. D. E. Britt, supra; moreover it is contended that Sickler and Investment Corporation, supra, are inapplicable here because neither involved the element of…

  ← 1 / 2 →