Adkins v. Economy Engineering Co., T-G
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2059,495 So.2d 247 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | T-G,No. 85-2269,85-2269 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2059, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,132 Donald ADKINS, Appellant, v. ECONOMY ENGINEERING COMPANY and Saf-reen of Jacksonville, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Chris W. Altenbernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., and Butler & Apgar, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Charles W. Pittman and Ted R. Manry, III of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellees.
The plaintiff appeals a final summary judgment for defendants in this products liability case. Count I of plaintiff's complaint alleged a cause of action in strict liability, and Count II of the complaint alleged negligence. We affirm the summary judgment for defendants.
The plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a scissors-lift work platform while pressure cleaning a building. The platform was manufactured by appellee Economy Engineering Company and sold by appellee Saf-T-Green of Jacksonville, Inc. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the work platform was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the side railings and chains were not high enough to prevent a person from falling over the side of the platform.
The plaintiff sustained head injuries when he fell, and he has no recollection of what caused the accident. One coworker was present at the time of the accident and testified that the plaintiff was on the platform which was being raised or had been raised to its extended position when the coworker turned away to look at something across the street. When he heard a noise, he turned back around and saw plaintiff falling through the air. He did not see what caused the fall. There is no indication in the record of how long a time passed between the coworker looking away and the beginning of the fall.
Because there is no competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, concerning the cause of the fall or where plaintiff was located or what he was doing when he fell, for plaintiff's cause of action to succeed it must be assumed that plaintiff was standing on the platform inside the railings, that for some reason he fell, and that the railings were too low to prevent his falling over the railings to the pavement below. However, other equally reasonable assumptions are possible, such as that plaintiff was sitting or standing or climbing on the railings, in which case the alleged low height of the railings would have had no effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Bryan v. Ford Motor Co.
...will fail to state a prima facie case or meet the burden of proof if they are unable to prove the defect. Adkins v. Economy Engineering Co., 495 So.2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ; North Am. Catamaran Racing v. McCollister, 480 So.2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ; Builders Shoring & Scaf. Equip., Inc......
-
Wong v. Crown Equipment Corp.
...to explain what happened. This action seeks recovery from defendants on a products liability theory. In Adkins v. Economy Engineering Co., 495 So.2d 247 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1986), a case in similar posture to the instant action, the court 'Because there is no competent evidence, direct or circu......
-
Fahy v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
...standing or climbing on the railing, in which case, the higher railings would not have prevented the fall. Adkins v. Economy Engineering Co., 495 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.App.1986).7 In his brief, plaintiff asserts that the defect was not the failure to install a deadman's switch, but, rather, t......
-
Brown v. Glade and Grove Supply, Inc., s. 93-1089
...defendants are distinguishable. See Reaves v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 569 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Adkins v. Economy Eng'g Co., 495 So.2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Rhodes v. International Harvester Co., 131 Ariz. 418, 641 P.2d 906 (Ct.App.1982). In Reaves, this court was reviewin......