Power Ski of Florida, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65--756,65--756 |
| Citation | 188 So.2d 13 |
| Parties | POWER SKI OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kelly, Paige, Black & Black, Miami, for appellant.
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, and James H. Walsh, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Allied Chemical Corporation, in a suit for damages allegedly arising out of a breach of an implied warranty. The appellant, a remote ultimate purchaser, sought to recover property damage from the manufacturer of a component part of the purchased product, which is neither a foodstuff nor a dangerous instrumentality.
The appellant manufactured, assembled and sold outboard powered watercraft under the trade name of Power Ski. This craft consisted of two fiberglass pontoon shells filled with a substance and covered by a metal deck. The defendant, Eubanks Industries, Inc., pursuant to a contract with the appellant, manufactured the pontoons for the power skis. The defendant, Allied Chemical Corporation, through its exclusive distributor (Southern Resin and Fiberglass Co.), furnished Eubanks with a substance (PFR--23) which was used to fill the fiberglass pontoon shells. The defendant, Allied Chemical Corporation, through its distributor furnished technical data sheets, stating that PFR--23 would not expand at temperatures up to 200 . The appellant alleges that Eubanks stored and mixed the substance properly and incorporated it into the pontoons properly. Nevertheless, the substance abnormally expanded about one-quarter of an inch on exposure to warm sunlight, after the appellant's power skis had been furnished to customers. This expansion burst apart the pontoons, rendering the power skis unfit for use. The customers returned the power skis and the appellant brought this action for the resulting damages.
Several facts are in controversy, such as whether Allied Chemical knew of the tendency of the product to expand in the sunlight; whether it knew the product would be used for the purposes for which it was used; and whether it was mixed correctly by Eubanks Industries, among other allegations.
It is admitted by the plaintiff that it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chisholm v. J. R. Simplot Co.
...18 L.Ed.2d 600 (1967); Reddick v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 295 F.Supp. 243 (S.D.Ga.1969); Power Ski of Florida, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp., 188 So.2d 13 (Fla.App.1966) (per curiam); Taylor v. Jacobson, 336 Mass. 709, 147 N.E.2d 770 (1958); Walk v. J. I. Case Co., 36 A.D.2d 60, 318 N.Y......
-
Autrey v. Chemtrust Industries Corporation
...between a consumer and remote manufacturer where breach of warranty produced personal injury. In Power Ski of Florida, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp., 188 So.2d 13 (3d Dist.Fla.App.1966), a Florida court held that privity was not required between one manufacturer bringing an action against a......
-
Tampa Electric Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
...of product" to offset recovery on implied warranty in a manner similar to contributory negligence. In Power Ski of Florida, Inc. v. Allied Chemical, 188 So.2d 13 (3 D.C.A. Fla.1966), the court was of the opinion that a manufacturer should not be liable for a product which fails because it w......
-
Best Canvas Products & Supplies, Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines, Inc.
...direct privity with the manufacturer is not required to support an action for breach of implied warranty. Power Ski of Florida, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp., 188 So.2d 13 (Fla.1966). Hence, the crucial question is whether Ploof's cause of action against Norton arose in Georgia or Florida. ......