[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: Coba v. Tricam Indus., 164 So. 3d 637, 641 (Fla. 2015); Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 502 (Fla. 2015).

First District: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Nelson, 353 So. 3d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Lawrence v. Brandell Prods., 619 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Third District: 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: Builders Shoring & Scaffolding Equip. Co. v. Schmidt, 411 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Keith v. Russell T. Bundy & Assocs., 495 So. 2d 1223, 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit:  McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002); Knepfle v. J-Tech Corp., 48 F.4th 1282, 1297 (11th Cir. 2022).

Northern District: Strozier v. Walmart, Inc., 1:21-CV-155-MW-GRJ, 2022 WL 4110531, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2022); McAllister v. Savage Arms, Inc., 5:21CV123-TKW-MJF, 2023 WL 8231503, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2023).

Southern District: NEIMA BENAVIDES, as Pers. Representative of the Estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, deceased, Plaintiff, v. TESLA, INC., a/k/a. Tesla Florida, Inc., Defendant., No. 21-CV-21940, 2025 WL 1768469, at *35 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2025); Ibarra v. Future Motion, Inc., 22-CV-14067, 2023 WL 3197672, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2023); Patt v. Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc., 22-CV-21585, 2024 WL 1675301, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2024).

Middle District: Baker v. Lone Star Wheel Components, LLC, No. 8:24-CV-1510-KKM-CPT, 2025 WL 1591690, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2025); Holland v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 626 F. Supp. 3d 1256, 1261 (M.D. Fla. 2022);  Brosius v. Home Depot Inc., 6:20-CV-1136-ACC-DCI, 2022 WL 1272087, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2022).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Strict Liability – Design 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 seller can successfully plead an affirmative defense to a strict liability design defect claim for a product incapable of being made safe if they establish that: (1) the product’s “benefits outweigh its known risks” as of the distribution date; (2) It is “incapable of being made safe,”; (3) It is “properly prepared and marketed,”; and (4) It is “accompanied by a proper warning.” LaBarre v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 544 F. App’x 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Adams v. G.D. Searle & Co., 576 So. 2d 728, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA. 1991); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, cmt. k. (1965).

(5) Under the Second Restatement’s consumer-expectation theory, a product is defectively designed if “the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.” Grieco v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc., 344 So. 3d 11, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (quoting Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 504 (Fla. 2015)).

(6) The Third Restatement’s “risk/utility” test requires the factfinder to determine whether a “reasonable alternative design” was available to the manufacturer. This was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in favor of the Second Restatement’s Consumer expectation test. Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 512 (Fla. 2015).

[/MM_Access_Decision]