Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1953 |
| Citation | 63 So.2d 514 |
| Parties | HOSKINS v. JACKSON GRAIN CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mabry, Reaves, Carlton, Anderson, Fields & Ward, Tampa, for appellant.
Cooper & Cooper, Tampa, and Bryant & Martin, Lakeland, for appellee.
In an opinion filed the 20th day of February, 1953, in the case of Corneli Seed Company v. Ferguson, Fla., 64 So.2d 162 we decided that a seed merchant may not escape liability for varietal difference between the seed represented for sale and the seed actually purchased by the planter. That decision requires a ruling in favor of the appellant on the first question presented in the instant case.
Another question arises from the appearance in the pleading of an allegation of fact, common to the cited case but not made the ground of a question there. We won't undertake to quote the averments or the motion directed to them for the point may be simply stated without such reference: would the lack of privity between the wholesaler and the planter afford an escape for the former from liability to the latter for disparity in variety, the shipment of the seed having been made to the retailer and having been delivered by him to the planter?
The general rule that an ultimate purchaser may not sue the wholesaler is not an absolute one and it seems to be losing force with the passage of time. For instance, this court has recognized the principle 'that as to items of foods or other products in the original package which are offered for sale for human consumption or use generally, a person who purchases such items in reliance upon the express or implied condition or assurance that they are wholesome and fit for the uses or purposes for which they are advertised or sold, and who is injured as the result of unwholesome or deleterious substances therein which are unknown to the buyer, may hold either the manufacturer or the retailer liable * * *.' Cliett v. Lauderdale Biltmore Corp., Fla., 39 So.2d 476, 477.
One of the opinions used as basis for this pronouncement is found in Blanton v. Cudahy Packing Company, 154 Fla. 872, 19 So.2d 313, where it was written that the liability attached regardless of privity of contract.
There is a conflict of opinion about the accountability of a manufacturer to a consumer on the theory of implied warranty in the absence of privity, but this court has become aligned with those courts holding that suit may be brought against the manufacturer notwithstanding want of privity.
But we will not stop here, for aside from the doctrine of implied warranty there is, in our opinion, a sound and just reason for holding that in case of purchase by a farmer of seed that are shown to be of a variety different from that represented, the wholesaler is responsible directly to the farmer for any resulting damage.
Where one violates a penal statute imposing upon him a duty designed to protect another he is negligent as a matter of law, therefore responsible for such damage as is proximately caused by his negligence. And, obviously, if a person negligently injures another liability cannot be affected by the fact that the two were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp.
...to permit the ancient shield of privity to insulate a tort feasor from the consequences of his negligent conduct. (see: Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co. (Fla.) 63 So.2d 514; Wintersteen v. National Cooperage and Woodenware Co., 361 Ill. 95, 197 N.E. 578; Durham v. Warner Elevator Mfg. Co., 166 ......
-
Cova v. Harley Davidson Motor Co.
...Material and Supply Co. (1967), 7 Mich.App. 275, 151 N.W.2d 345 (action against wholesaler); Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co. (Fla.1953), 63 So.2d 514 (action against wholesaler; negligence arising from violation of a statute prohibiting mislabeling was also mentioned as an additional basis of ......
-
West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc.
...See Prosser, The Assault Upon the Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer), 69 Yale L.J. 1099, 1133--34 (1960). In Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., 63 So.2d 514 (Fla.1953), this Court aligned itself with those courts holding that a consumer could bring a suit on the theory of implied warrant......
-
Nakanishi v. Foster
...products it offered for sale.' See, also, Morrow v. Caloric Appliance Corp., 372 S.W.2d 41 (Mo.1963). The case of Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., 63 So.2d 514, 515 (Fla.1953), involved facts and a statute almost indentical with the facts and statute here. In holding the wholesaler liable to t......