[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Manufacturer or seller places a defective product on the market;
2. The defective product is sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition;
3. The product reaches the plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which the product is sold; and
4. The defect is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Manufacturer or seller places a defective product on the market;
2. The defective product is sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition;
3. The product reaches the plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which the product is sold; and
4. The defect is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

A product is unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing defect if it does not conform to its intended design and fails to perform as safely as the intended design would have performed. Reyes v. Barnett Outdoors, LLC, No. 8:20-cv-763-SDM-TGW, 2022 WL 1619430, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2022).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 87 (Fla. 1976); Ford Motor Co. v. Hill, 404 So. 2d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 1981). 

First District: Cunningham v. Gen. Motors Corp., 561 So. 2d 656, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Lawrence v. Brandell Prods., 619 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). 

Second District: Watson v. Lucerne Mach. & Equip., Inc., 347 So. 2d 459, 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). 

Third District:Plaza v. Fisher Dev., Inc., 971 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); D-I Davit Int’l-Hische Gmbh v. Carpio, 346 So. 3d 197, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). 

Fourth District: Rivera v. Baby Trend, Inc., 914 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Harrell v. BMS Partners, LLC, 350 So. 3d 361, 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). 

Fifth District: Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 681 So. 2d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Builders Shoring & Scaffolding Equip. Co. v. Schmidt, 411 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Godelia v. Doe, 881 F.3d 1309, 1318 (11th Cir. 2018).

Northern District: Strozier v. Walmart, Inc., 1:21-CV-155-MW-GRJ, 2022 WL 4110531, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2022).

Southern District: Zamora v. AAP Implants, Inc., No. 24-CV-21625, 2024 WL 4851352, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 24-CV-21625, 2024 WL 5040719 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2024); Ibarra v. Future Motion, Inc., 22-CV-14067, 2023 WL 3197672, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2023); Karpel v. Knauf Gips KG, 21-24168-CIV, 2022 WL 4366946, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2022); Sultzer v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 24-cv-80137-MIDDLEBROOKS, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121976, at *15-16 (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2024).

Middle District: Holland v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 626 F. Supp. 3d 1256, 1261 (M.D. Fla. 2022); Disarro v. EzriCare, LLC, 2:23-CV-230-JES-KCD, 2023 WL 4737010, at *6 (M.D. Fla. July 25, 2023).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect

(1) R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Statute of Repose: § 95.031(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (twelve years).

(4) A claimant may not commence an action for injury caused by a product with an expected useful life of 10 years or less, if the harm was caused by exposure to the product more than 12 years after its delivery to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of selling or leasing the product or of using the product as a component in the manufacture of another product. § 95.031, Fla. Stat.

(5) Assumption of Risk where the user voluntarily and unreasonably proceeds to encounter a known danger is a defense. West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 90 (Fla. 1976).

(6) Contributory/ Comparative negligence of the user or consumer or bystander in the sense of a “failure to discover a defect, or to guard against the possibility of its existence, is not a defense.” West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 90 (Fla. 1976).

(7) If the plaintiff misused the product in a way that was not reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer, and this misuse is a substantial proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or damages, this can serve as a valid defense. Gonzalez v. G.A. Braun, Inc., 608 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

(8) “The manufacturer’s liability also extends to bystanders who are injured by the defective product.” Disarro v. EzriCare, LLC, 2:23-CV-230-JES-KCD, 2023 WL 4737010, at *6 (M.D. Fla. July 25, 2023).

[/MM_Access_Decision]