Rodriguez v. New Holland North America, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-128.,3D00-128. |
| Citation | 767 So.2d 543 |
| Parties | Juan RODRIGUEZ and Marcia Rodriguez, Appellants, v. NEW HOLLAND NORTH AMERICA, INC., and Growers Ford Tractor Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Spencer & Klein and Paul D. Breitner, Miami, for appellants.
Quarles & Brady, Mark A. Kircher and Cory L. Nettles (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), for appellees.
Before LEVY, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.
The plaintiffs, Juan and Marcia Rodriguez, appeal from an adverse final judgment. We affirm.
The plaintiff, Juan Rodriguez, was injured while operating a Ford New Holland Model L-785 skid-steer loader in the course of his employment. The L-785 skid-steer loader is a four-wheeled, rubber-tired compact loader used in agricultural and industrial applications.
The loader is controlled from a seat located inside the operator's compartment. There are two foot pedals. The left pedal controls the raising and lowering of the boom. The right pedal controls the tilting and curling of whatever implement is attached —in this case, a tree boom. Two hand levers control the direction and speed of the tires. The loader is equipped with a seat belt that must be fastened before the loader can be started and before the boom can be used. There is also a switch in the seat that prevents the boom from moving if the operator leaves his seat. Similarly, if the operator unbuckles the seat belt, the loader's boom is locked and will not move.
On the day of the accident, Rodriguez was working with two other laborers to construct a light-weight greenhouse at a tree nursery. He was using the loader to lift roof trusses to a height where his co-workers could bolt them onto the top of the framework for the greenhouse. The trusses were hooked onto the end of a tree boom.
At the time of the accident, Rodriguez had the boom of the skid-steer loader raised to its fullest extent. While he was waiting for his co-workers to secure the truss, he took his right foot off of the right foot pedal and placed it up on the front sill of the operator's compartment. He then closed his eyes, leaned back, and may have fallen asleep. At some point, Rodriguez bumped the left foot pedal that controls the raising and lowering of the boom. When Rodriguez bumped the left foot pedal, he lowered the boom onto the front portion of his right foot that was extended out over the front sill of the operator's compartment and into the boom's downward path. Rodriguez was awakened by the blow of the boom striking his foot. Rodriguez suffered a foot injury requiring several surgical procedures and finally resulting in the loss/amputation of three toes.
Rodriguez and his wife brought suit against New Holland North America, Inc. and Growers Ford Tractor Company alleging negligent failure to warn, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The complaint alleged that the loader was defective because of an unguarded "pinch point." The complaint also alleged that the loader did not include sufficient warnings of the allegedly defective and unreasonably dangerous condition.
The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' negligent failure to warn claim arguing that the alleged hazard was "open and obvious" as a matter of law. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment finding that "the hazard complained of by plaintiff was open and obvious and was known to or should have been known to the plaintiff, such that defendants were relieved of any duty to provide a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veliz v. Rental Service Corp. Usa, Inc.
...dangerous or has dangerous propensities ... However, there is no duty to warn of an obvious danger." Rodriguez v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 767 So.2d 543, 544-45 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000) (finding no duty to warn that boom on skid-steer loader would crush a foot extended out and over front sill o......
-
153, United Statescg No. 295280 v. Galioto (In re Complaint of Bos. Boat Iii, LLC)
...a motorcycle may result in a collision and injuries to the lower body held to be an obvious danger); Rodriguez v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 767 So. 2d 543, 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (finding that a loader was inherently dangerous and danger of coming into contact with loader's boom was......
-
John Morrell & Co. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Case No. 06-60786-CIV.
...operating a dune buggy.")). Under Florida law, there is no duty to warn someone of an obvious danger. Rodriguez v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 767 So.2d 543, 544-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citations omitted).5 "The obviousness of a danger and adequacy of a warning are determined by a `reasonable ......
-
Morocco v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am. (In re Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am. Asphalt Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig.)
...are known or obvious." Farias v. Mr. Heater, Inc., 684 F.3d 1231, 1233 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Rodriguez v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 767 So.2d 543, 544-45 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)). "[A]n inherently dangerous product is one burdened with a latent danger which derives from the very natur......