Cohen v. General Motors Corp., Cadillac Div.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-462,82-462 |
| Citation | 427 So.2d 389 |
| Parties | Dr. Bernard COHEN and Florence Cohen, his wife, Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CADILLAC DIVISION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Milton Kelner of Kelner & Kelner, Miami, for appellants.
R. Benjamine Reid of Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson & Kniskern, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant, General Motors Corporation, in an action for personal injuries based upon strict liability, breach of implied warranty of reasonable fitness for use, and negligence.
When the automatic parking brake release of a 1978 Cadillac malfunctioned, appellant, Cohen, came to the driver's assistance. The automobile designers had anticipated that this automatic feature might not function and provided an emergency manual brake release as well. Cohen was aware of the location of the manual release lever under the dash because he owned a Cadillac and had read the owner's manual. The vehicle was running, sitting on an incline and in gear (Reverse), although the driver told appellant it was in "park." Cohen positioned himself in such a manner that when he released the parking brake, the car moved backward over his leg, injuring him.
Appellant Cohen alleged that the car was defective and the owner's manuals were inadequate for failing to advise the reader to place the car in park or to utilize the footbrake when manually disengaging the emergency brake.
We are asked to review the summary judgment entered by the lower court. The counts in strict liability and implied warranty are premised on the existence of a defect and no defect was shown. While it is true that the automatic brake release failed to work, the automobile designers anticipated this very contingency and provided an alternate manual release. The fact that a mechanical convenience malfunctions does not necessarily mean that it is legally defective.
Moreover, the requisite proximate causation is not present. It was not the failure of the automatic brake release but the appellant's use of the properly functioning manual brake release which allowed the car to roll, injuring appellant. Thus the summary judgment was appropriate on these two counts.
Turning to the negligence action, appellee is charged with breaching the duty to warn by failing to specifically instruct the user to shift the car into neutral gear or engage the foot brake while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. Republic Tobacco, L.P.
...Reynolds Metals Co., 466 So.2d 245, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 476 So.2d 676 (Fla.1985); Cohen v. General Motors Corp., Cadillac Div., 427 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981). In addition, the "open and obvious" test......
-
153, United Statescg No. 295280 v. Galioto (In re Complaint of Bos. Boat Iii, LLC)
...high piece of equipment that was not designed to be used as a work platform and then falling off); Cohen v. Gen. Motors Corp., Cadillac Div., 427 So. 2d 389, 391 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (finding no duty to warn of the obvious result that manually releasing an emergency brake may cause a ......
-
John Morrell & Co. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Case No. 06-60786-CIV.
...high piece of equipment that was not designed to be used as a work platform and then falling off); Cohen v. General Motors Corp., Cadillac Division, 427 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (finding no duty to warn of the obvious result that manually releasing an emergency brake may cause a c......
-
Grieco v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc.
..., 816 So. 2d at 1139. "However, there is no duty to warn of an obvious danger." Cohen v. Gen. Motors Corp., Cadillac Div. , 427 So. 2d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ; Insua v. JD/BBJ, LLC , 913 So. 2d 1262, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding an inherent need for a warning on a dangerous produ......
-
The duty to warn - a matter of reasonableness, not arbitrariness.
...however, no duty to warn of an obvious danger. Restatement (Second) of Torts [sections] 388, comment k; Cohen v. General Motors Corp., 427 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983). [6] An issue may also arise over the adequacy or reasonableness of the content of the warning. See, for example, Rest......