[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.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So.3d 489, 502-03 (Fla. 2015); West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80, 86 (Fla. 1976).

First District: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Nelson, 353 So. 3d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Lesnik v. Duval Ford, LLC, 185 So.3d 577, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060, 1067-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Second District: Cataldo v. Lazy Days R.V. Ctr., Inc., 920 So.2d 174, 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Savage v. Jacobsen Mfg., 396 So.2d 731, 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Third District: D-I Davit Int’l-Hische GMBH v. Carpio, 346 So. 3d 197, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); Plaza v. Fisher Dev., Inc., 971 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. Medina, 719 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Fourth District: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown, 70 So.3d 707, 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Rivera v. Baby Trend, Inc., 914 So.2d 1102, 1103-04 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Fifth District: Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Knepfle v. J-Tech Corp., 48 F.4th 1282, 1297 (11th Cir. 2022); Godelia v. Doe 1, 881 F.3d 1309, 1318 (11th Cir. 2018); Bailey v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 288 F. App’x. 597, 607 (11th Cir. 2008).

Southern District: Miceli v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2022 WL 18663123, *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2022); Penick v. Harbor Freight Tools, USA, Inc., No. 19-CV-23134, 2020 WL 6581606, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2020); In re Aesculap Implant Sys. LLC, No. 2:19-CV-14421, 2019 WL 7343255, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2019); Olmo v. Davol, Inc., No. 13-62260-CIV-COHN, 2017 WL 1367231, at *7 (S.D. Fla. April 10, 2017)(discussing the elements of strict liability for design defect).

Middle District: Packer v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., 2022 WL 4355734, *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2022); Flaherty v. E-Go Bike, LLC, 2022 WL 445428, *3-6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2022); Brosius v. Home Depot Inc., 2022 WL 1272087, *4-6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2022); Sparks v Medtronic, Inc., No. 8:20-CV-3074-SCB-TGW, 2021 WL 2649235, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2021).

Northern District: Strozier v. Walmart, Inc., 2022 WL 4110531, *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2022); Gutierrez v. Integrated Med. Techs. USA, LLC, No. 3:14CV271/MCR/EMT, 2019 WL 3021462, at *5 (N.D. Fla. June 4, 2019); Thibault v. White, No. 5:16-cv-56-GRJ, 2017 WL 1902173, at *12 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2017)(discussing the elements of strict liability for failure to warn).

FLORIDA STATUTES

‘ 768.73, Fla. Stat. (limitation on punitive damages for strict liability)

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts ‘ 402(A) (1965)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Strict Liability

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

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

(3) The statute of repose bars product liability actions based on harm “allegedly caused by a product with an expected useful life of 10 years or less, if the harm was caused by exposure to or use of the product more than 12 years after delivery of the product 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,’’ unless the product is specifically exempted as having a useful life greater than 10 years. § 95.031(2)(b), Fla. Stat; Dominguez v. Hayward Indus., Inc., 201 So.3d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Competitor Liaison Bureau, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., No. 6:08–cv–2165–Orl–28GJK, 2011 WL 1344455, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2011).

(4) Product misuse will diminish the plaintiff’s recovery through comparative negligence. Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Benitez, 648 So.2d 1192, 1197 (Fla. 1994); Cerrato v. Nutribullet, LLC, No. 8:16–cv–3077–T–24 JSS, 2017 WL 5164898, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2017).

(5) Assumption of the risk will diminish the plaintiff’s recovery through comparative negligence. Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So.2d 287, 293 (Fla. 1977); Petruzzella v. Church on the Rock of Palm Coast, Inc., 219 So.3d 239, 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

(6) Manufacturers are not liable for damages caused by products that cannot be made safe for its ordinary and intended uses when the product is still useful despite the product’s known risks. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A Comment K (1986); Zanzuri v. G.D. Searle & Co., 748 F. Supp. 1511, 1518 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (listing federal requirements of Comment K defense); Adams v. G. D. Searle & Co., Inc., 576 So.2d 728, 733-734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (listing Florida requirement for Comment K defense).

(7) The economic loss doctrine is limited to products liability cases and bars causes of action in tort unless the defective product injures a person or damages property other than the defective product itself. Tiara Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. March & McClennan Cos. Inc., 110 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2013); King v. Bencie, 752 F. App’x. 881, 883 (11th Cir. 2018).

(8) Consent is a defense to strict liability claims. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892 (1965).

[/MM_Access_Decision]