Johnson v. Supro Corp.
Decision Date | 18 November 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 86-1022,86-1022 |
Citation | 498 So.2d 528,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2411 |
Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2411, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,187 Efrem JOHNSON, Appellant, v. SUPRO CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gene Flinn, Miami, Kenneth Cohen, Hollywood, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane and Shelley H. Leinicke, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.
In 1970, the defendant Supro Corporation, which was engaged in manufacturing dry wall products in Orlando, added a platform and grating to a piece of machinery called a "ribbon blender" it had purchased in 1966. In 1976, Supro sold its entire Florida operation--including the blender, which it had continued to use without incident--to a competitor, FRM, Inc. 1 That company installed the blender in its Fort Lauderdale plant where, on July 1, 1984, one of its employees, the plaintiff Johnson, fell from the grating and was injured. Alleging that the accident had been caused by defects in the changes in the equipment it made in 1970, Johnson sued Supro on claims of negligent manufacture, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability. He now appeals from a summary judgment in the defendant's favor. We affirm.
Even though Supro may be regarded for some purposes as the "assembler" and therefore the "manufacturer" of the piece of equipment it rebuilt, see A.E. Finley & Associates, Inc. v. Medley, 141 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 279 (Fla.1962), it cannot be held liable in this case even if the adaptation had been improperly effected. This is because every theory of products liability inuring to the benefit of third persons like Johnson--from that of negligent manufacture which effectively originated in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916), through breach of implied warranty, see Toombs v. Fort Pierce Gas Co., 208 So.2d 615 (Fla.1968), to and including the strict liability doctrine of section 402A of the Restatement of Torts as adopted in Florida by West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976)--is based on the essential requirement that the responsible party is in the business of and gains profits from distributing or disposing of the "product" in question through the stream of commerce. See West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d at 86 (); Bevard v. Ajax Manufacturing Co., 473 F.Supp. 35 (E.D.Mich.1979) ( ). See generally Keith v. Russell T. Bundy & Associates, Inc., 495 So.2d 1223 (1986) and cases cited.
It is clear that Supro does not fall within this rule. It was in the business of manufacturing dry wall products with the machine which it adapted for that very use and purpose; it was decidedly not in the business of manufacturing and distributing the machine itself. Furthermore, the one-time sale of its entire operation, which happened to include the ribbon blender, cannot render it liable to Johnson any more than a homeowner who incorrectly installs a built-in dishwasher may be held responsible as a "manufacturer" to a subsequent purchaser of the home. See Barry v. Stevens Equipment Co., 176 Ga.App. 27, 335 S.E.2d 129 (1985)(repairer hired by owner of used...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Faddish v. Pumps
...from the distribution and sale of product through the stream of commerce), rev. den,553 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1989); Johnson v. Supro Corp., 498 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (same); Rivera v. Baby Trend, Inc., 914 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (relevant query in products liability action is whet......
-
Faddish v. Pumps
...from the distribution and sale of product through the stream of commerce), rev. den, 553 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1989); Johnson v Supro Corp., 498 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(same); Rivera v Baby Trend, Inc., 914 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (relevant query in products liability action is wheth......
-
North Miami General Hosp., Inc. v. Goldberg
...3d DCA 1986) (retailer of defective Pepsi cartons strictly liable), review denied, 509 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1987), with Johnson v. Supro Corp., 498 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (manufacturer which defectively rebuilds machinery for its own use in producing other product not strictly liable). Thi......
-
Patterson v. Western Auto Supply Co.
...and gains profits from distributing or disposing of the `product' in question through the stream of commerce." Johnson v. Supro Corp., 498 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) (quoting West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80, 86 (Fla.1976)). But "privity" is no longer required under ......