Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, Nos. 81-1597

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtCOBB; COWART, J., and DANIEL C. WELBORN
Citation422 So.2d 996
PartiesHUSKY INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and Insurance Company of North America, a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellants, v. Wilson J. GRIFFITH, Sherwin-Williams Company, a foreign corporation, Continental Can Company, Inc., a foreign corporation, and Union Oil Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.
Docket NumberNos. 81-1597,82-5
Decision Date24 November 1982

Page 996

422 So.2d 996
HUSKY INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and Insurance Company of North America, a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellants,
v.
Wilson J. GRIFFITH, Sherwin-Williams Company, a foreign corporation, Continental Can Company, Inc., a foreign corporation, and Union Oil Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.
Nos. 81-1597, 82-5.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Nov. 24, 1982.

Page 997

Stephen W. Beik of Pitts, Eubanks & Ross, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

Carey N. Bos of Rogers & Dowling, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

COBB, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court properly granted a summary judgment for third-party defendant, Continental Can Company. We hold it did and affirm.

The plaintiff in the action below, Wilson J. Griffith, brought suit against appellant, Husky Industries, to recover damages for injuries he received when the Smokey Bear Charcoal Lighter Fluid he was applying to a charcoal grill ignited, causing the can to explode. Husky filed a third-party second amended complaint against Sherwin Williams, the manufacturer of the container; Continental Can Co., which manufactured the closure for the container; and Union Oil Co., which supplied the lighter fluid.

Page 998

The action against Continental is the focus of this appeal. The complaint against Continental sought damages both under indemnity and contribution. 1 In the complaint, Husky alleged three counts against Continental. The first, for negligence, alleged that Continental breached its duty to manufacture the caps and spouts free of defects and safe for the uses intended and foreseeable. Husky alleged that such negligence consisted of, but was not limited to, improper design, manufacture or assembly, the failure to inspect for defects, and the failure to warn of dangers. Husky's second count was based on an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for use. Husky claimed that the warranty was breached by the defective design due to Continental's failure to provide flashback arrestors, which allowed the can to explode. The final count against Continental was for strict liability, with Husky alleging that the spouts and closures contained a defect or defects which created an unreasonable risk of harm to foreseeable users, and that Husky relied on Continental to provide a product free of defects, with Continental knowing this and knowing that no inspection by Husky would occur. Husky also alleged the defect consisted of, but was not limited to, the defective design of not allowing for the flashback arrestor.

Continental moved for a summary judgment, alleging that the instant action was barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, since the question of liability between Husky and Continental regarding the manufacture and sale of charcoal lighter cans had been determined in a prior case, Black v. Husky, Inc., No. 78-4591 CA(L)OIG (15th Judicial Circuit In and For Palm Beach County (1980)). In Black, the plaintiff was injured in the explosion of a can of Sparky Lighter Fluid manufactured by Husky when he lit a match on lighter fluid-soaked charcoal. The flames then spread to the can, exploding, injuring the plaintiff. Black brought suit against Husky, and Husky then filed a third-party complaint against Sherwin Williams, Continental and Union Oil. In the complaint, Husky alleged counts of negligence, implied warranty and strict liability similar to those pled...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Rodriguez v. State, No. SC00-99.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 26, 2005
    ...of the court do not limit the lawful authority of any judge of the court, nor do they bestow rights on litigants." Kruckenberg, 422 So.2d at 996; see also Adler v. Seligman of Fla., Inc., 492 So.2d 730, 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The mere departure from a random assignment procedure is insuff......
  • Bondu v. Gurvich, Nos. 81-968
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 5, 1984
    ...brought. See United States Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Casualty Co., 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532 (1936); Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Stevens v. Len-Hal Realty, Inc., 403 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The dismissal of Counts VIII and IX adjudicated, at mo......
  • Estate of Starling, In re, No. 82-1457
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 10, 1984
    ...attraction was the unfinished hotel and the danger was the defective floor and unguarded shaft. 1 See Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1 The general rule of an employer's lack of liability for the torts of a general contractor has so many exceptions one author......
  • Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kisha, No. 5D14–37.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 22, 2015
    ...1101, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ; U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So.2d 78, 79–80 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) ; Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Thus, “[c]ollateral estoppel ... serves as a bar to relitigation of an issue which has already been determined by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Rodriguez v. State, No. SC00-99.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 26, 2005
    ...of the court do not limit the lawful authority of any judge of the court, nor do they bestow rights on litigants." Kruckenberg, 422 So.2d at 996; see also Adler v. Seligman of Fla., Inc., 492 So.2d 730, 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The mere departure from a random assignment procedure is insuff......
  • Bondu v. Gurvich, Nos. 81-968
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 5, 1984
    ...brought. See United States Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Casualty Co., 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532 (1936); Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Stevens v. Len-Hal Realty, Inc., 403 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The dismissal of Counts VIII and IX adjudicated, at mo......
  • Estate of Starling, In re, No. 82-1457
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 10, 1984
    ...attraction was the unfinished hotel and the danger was the defective floor and unguarded shaft. 1 See Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1 The general rule of an employer's lack of liability for the torts of a general contractor has so many exceptions one author......
  • Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kisha, No. 5D14–37.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 22, 2015
    ...1101, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ; U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So.2d 78, 79–80 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) ; Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Thus, “[c]ollateral estoppel ... serves as a bar to relitigation of an issue which has already been determined by......
  • 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