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

Decision Date24 November 1982
Docket NumberNos. 81-1597,82-5,s. 81-1597
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.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

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.

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 in the instant case's complaint. The negligence alleged was in the specifying, designing, manufacturing, inspecting and assembling of the spouts and closures, with the negligence consisting of, but not limited to, improper design, manufacture or assembly, improper testing and inspecting, and failure to adequately warn of the dangers and the failure to use safety precautions.

In the implied warranty count, Husky alleged that the spouts and closures were defectively designed so as to allow explosions, and in the strict liability count, they alleged that the parts contained a defect or defects which created an unreasonable risk of harm to foreseeable users, with Continental knowing that no inspection would occur prior to use.

In answer to request for admissions in the instant case, Husky admitted that it was involved in a prior third-party action with Continental Can; that the cap and closure on the Sparky can in the Black case was the same type as that in the instant case; that the suit was based on negligence, breach of implied warranty and strict liability; and that the court entered a final judgment for the plaintiff in that action, with Husky taking nothing from Continental. Husky also admitted that the jury in the Black case found that Continental did not breach its implied warranty, and that the cap was reasonably fit for the uses intended or reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.

The trial court in the instant case granted Continental's motion for a summary judgment on November 6, 1981, and a final summary judgment was entered on November 17, 1981. Husky's motion for relief from summary judgment, alleging newly-discovered evidence under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, based upon letters showing a possible defect in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Rodriguez v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 26, 2005
    ... ... See MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990). In Rose v. State, 601 So.2d ... ...
  • Bondu v. Gurvich, s. 81-968
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1984
    ...later 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,......
  • Estate of Starling, In re, 82-1457
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1984
    ...The 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 1982).1 The general rule of an employer's lack of liability for the torts of a general contractor has so many exceptions o......
  • Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kisha
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 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
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal theories & defenses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ...2000). 3. All Pro Sports Camp, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co ., 727 So.2d 363, 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). 4. Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith , 422 So.2d 996, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). 5. Real Estate Corporation of Florida, N.V. v. Dawn Developers, Inc. , 677 So.2d 366, 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). 6. ......

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