Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, 130.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 130.,130. |
| Citation | 186 So.2d 798 |
| Parties | MAI KAI, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Richard C. Reilly, Appellants, v. Mary COLUCCI et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Norman C. Roettger, Jr., of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant Mai Kai, Inc.
L. Fred Austin, of Carey, Terry, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Stephens, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant Richard C. Reilly.
Fred Patrox, Miami, for appellees.
Defendants, Mai Kai, Inc. and Richard C. Reilly, appeal a judgment entered after trial by jury for plaintiffs, Mary Colucci and her husband, Bart Colucci. The action was based upon injuries to the plaintiff-wife caused by a metal counterweight to a special kind of decorative fan falling from above while she was seated for dining.
Reilly, the architect, prepared plans and specifications for the fan. The original design was on a principle different from that ultimately used in the actual construction of the fans. After consultations on the first plans the owner requested the architect and the fabricator to prepare a less expensive fan. The architect thereafter revised the original plans. Neither the original plans nor the revised plans contemplated counterweights. When the fans were finally fabricated each contained counterweights which the architect observed in witnessing the trial run, but there was never any revision of plans to include counterweights.
Shortly after installation of the fans in the ceiling on the premises of the defendant, Mai Kai, a squeak developed. At a conference the owner, the fabricator and the architect came to a consensus that extending the length of the metal counterweight rod might remedy the squeak. On their direction the counterweight rod was extended. The extension added about six pounds in weight and it added an increase of the stress on the weld joining the counterweight rod to the collar on the shaft. The architect testified that he knew that the additional extension of the counterweight rod added additional weight and that this would cause an increase of the stress on the weld but he did not impart that knowledge to the owner or the fabricator. Less than a week after the lengthening of the counterweight rods the weld broke causing the plaintiff's injuries. There was much evidence to the effect that the weld was imperfect and that the rod fell because of this defect. A witness for the fabricator, testifying as an expert in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham
...appropriate plans and specifications. The fan struck the patron when a weld severed. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 186 So.2d 798, affirmed a judgment in favor of the patron; on certiorari review, we implicitly recognized the viability of the cause of action against the supe......
-
Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, s. 35437
...because of what is said to be a conflict in the decision of the District Court of Appeal in this case (See Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, et al., Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 798) and the decision of this Court in Slavin v. Kay, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 462. It is my opinion that there is no such conflict......
-
Rist v. Northside Center, Inc.
...recent case of Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, Fla.1967, 205 So.2d 291, the Supreme Court quashed an opinion of the District Court of Appeal, 186 So.2d 798 affirming a judgment for the plaintiff entered after a trial by the jury. The Supreme Court held that on the evidence relative to material is......