Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D. E. Britt Associates, Inc., 4475

Citation168 So.2d 333
Decision Date07 October 1964
Docket NumberNo. 4475,4475
PartiesAUDLANE LUMBER & BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. D. E. BRITT ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation, and Anchor Lock of Florida, Inc., a corporation, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, for appellant.

Charles F. Clark, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee D. E. Britt Associates, Inc.

William T. Keen, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos & Evans, Tampa, and Ellis, Spencer & Butler, Hollywood, for appellee Anchor Lock of Florida, Inc.

ANDREWS, Judge.

This appeal arises from a judgment of dismissal determining that appellant Audlane Lumber and Builders Supply, Inc. and no cause of action against appellee D. E. Britt Associates, Inc. The question presented is whether one who prepared the design and specifications for a chattel may be liable, upon theories of negligence or implied warranty, to a third party who is damaged by reason of defects in such design and specifications.

The cause arose and was determined upon the complaint filed by appellant, a manufacturer and distributor of building supplies, against Anchor Lock of Florida, Inc., a manufacturer of metal plates used in the construction of wooden trusses, and D. E. Britt Associates, Inc. an engineering firm which prepared design and specifications for wooden trusses.

The complaint alleged, inter alia, facts as follow: Appellant purchased a certain quantity of metal truss plates together with design and specifications for the construction of wooden trusses from appellee Anchor Lock. The design and specifications had been prepared for Anchor Lock by appellee D. E. Britt Associates and the names of both corporations were imprinted upon the plans. Following the acquisition of the plates and plans, appellant constructed trusses according to said design and specifications and sold the trusses to a residential construction contractor. Used by the latter in the construction of a house, the trusses failed and the roof bowed, necessitating extensive replacement and repairs to the house. This failure of the trusses, allegedly due to the fact that the design and specifications by which they were constructed were faulty, improper and unfit for their purpose, eventuated in damage to appellant's business reputation, ensuing loss of profits, and the expenditure of considerable sums in identifying and repairing the fault in the trusses.

Recovery of appellant's damages was sought under theories set forth in five counts of the complaint. Two of these counts, the fourth and fifth, are of no moment on this appeal and our consideration is limited to counts one through three. Counts one and three sound in negligence: The former against both defendant-appellees and the latter against defendant-appellee Britt Associates alone. Alleging that Britt Associates, in preparing the design and specifications knew that they would be sold to plaintiff and others and that these purchasers would and did rely upon their accuracy and fitness, the negligence counts continued with allegation of specific acts and evidences of negligent preparation. Count two, also containing allegation that Britt Associates knew plaintiff-appellant would purchase and rely upon the plans, alleged that Britt Associates 'impliedly warranted the fitness of the design * * * for the purpose for which it was intended,' that plaintiff relied upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 26 juni 2001
    ...Inc. v. Roark Assocs., 40 Colo.App. 269, 572 P.2d 1220, 1221 (1977); Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D.E. Britt Assocs., Inc., 168 So.2d 333, 335 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1964), cert. denied, 173 So.2d 146 (Fla.1965); Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. 701, 437 N.E.2d 514, 525 (Mass.1982); Bor......
  • RJ Longo Const. Co. v. Transit America
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 10 april 1996
    ...767, 372 N.E.2d 555 (1977); City of Mounds View v. Walijarvi, 263 N.W.2d 420 (Minn.1978); Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D.E. Britt Associates, Inc., 168 So.2d 333 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1964), cert. denied, 173 So.2d 146 (Fl.1965); State of New Mexico v. Gathman-Matotan Architects and Pl......
  • Klein v. Catalano
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 7 juli 1982
    ...elements of the plaintiff's action for negligence and breach of implied warranty are the same. Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D. E. Britt Assocs., 168 So.2d 333 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1964). Consequently, we believe that G.L. c. 260, § 2B, necessarily bars the plaintiff's breach of war......
  • Bd. of Managers of Park Point at Wheeling Condo. Ass'n v. Park Point at Wheeling, LLC
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 december 2015
    ...not subject to the implied warranty of fitness for intended use); Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D.E. Britt Associates, Inc., 168 So.2d 333, 335 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1964) (an engineer or architect preparing designs and specifications to be used in construction must act reasonably an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT