Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. FF-387,FF-387 |
| Parties | Billie Earl HETHCOAT, as Administratrix of the Estate of William Randolph Eatman, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v. CHEVRON OIL CO., Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc., and V. E. Whitehurst & Sons, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Dean, William C. Owen of McClure, Wigginton, Campbell & Owen, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Bruce S. Bullock, Jacksonville, Wilson Sanders and Monroe E. McDonald of Sanders, McEwan, Mims & McDonald, Orlando, Robert L. Cowles, Jacksonville, for appellees.
By opinion on rehearing the Supreme Court of Florida quashed the decision of this Court in Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 364 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and remanded for consideration only as to appellee, Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc. Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 380 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1980). The decision of this Court as to appellees Chevron Oil Company and V. E. Whitehurst & Sons, Inc., was approved.
Upon reconsideration of our decision with respect to appellee Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc., in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Auburn Machine Works Co. v. Jones, 366 So.2d 1167 (Fla.1979), rejecting the "patent danger doctrine" as an absolute defense in products liability cases, we find as follows with respect to the points raised by appellant on this appeal:
1. The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc.
2. The trial court erred in not permitting appellant's engineering expert to express his opinion in response to a hypothetical question presented to him as to the efficiency of the venting system of the heat tank to remove vapors so as to exclude the possibility of a combustible mixture existing in the heat tank.
3. While evidence of postaccident remedial and precautionary measures undertaken and recommended by a defendant is, as a general rule, not admissible evidence as proof of the defendant's negligence in not having taken such remedial action prior to the accident, Hy-Way Heat Systems, Inc., opened the door to such evidence on rebuttal by presenting testimony of its president which had the effect of indicating to the jury that it had made no changes in its recommendations as to use of the tank subsequent to the accident.
The final judgment is affirmed as to appellees Chevron Oil Company and V. E. Whitehurst & Sons, Inc., but is reversed and remanded for a new trial as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens
...1983); Dept. of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), approved, 438 So.2d 780 (Fla.1983); Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As we view the complained of evidence, it was offered to show the continuation of an intentional course of conduct ......
-
Hartman v. Opelika Mach. and Welding Co., TT-50
...(1925). Second, evidence of subsequent repairs can be used in rebuttal if the opposing party "opens the door." Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We have found no cases in Florida involving the precise factual situation to that before us, i.e., where post-accide......
-
Padilla v. Gulf Power Co.
...Co., 364 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (concurring and dissenting opinion), rev'd, 380 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1980), on remand, 383 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).1 Compare Tillery v. Standard Sand & Silica Co., 226 So.2d 842 (Fla.2d DCA 1969), where owner supplied a latently defective weldi......
-
Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...where the case is remanded for a new trial. See Agate v. Clampitt, 80 So.3d 450, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ; Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The principles of Ed Ricke —not—Airvac —apply. We therefore reject this argument.III. Statute of Limitations & Equit......
-
Subsequent remedial measures: the misunderstood Rule of Evidence.
..."offered for another purpose." (21) Murray v. Almaden Vineyards, 429 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1983). (22) Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Corp., 383 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. (23) Morowitz v. Vistaview Apartments, 613 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1993); Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Corp., 383 So. 2d 93......