Rowland Truck Equipment, Inc. v. Everwear Products, Inc., s. 84-1509
| Decision Date | 23 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | 84-1550,Nos. 84-1509,s. 84-1509 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1047 ROWLAND TRUCK EQUIPMENT, INC., Appellant, v. EVERWEAR PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pomeroy, Betts & Miller and Steve R. Berger and Amy N. Dean and Diane Kuker, Miami, for appellant.
Pyszka & Kessler and William Douberley, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.
This is a products liability action in which a defendant truck manufacturer, Rowland Truck Equipment, Inc. [Rowland], appeals an adverse summary judgment on its indemnity and contribution claim filed against a co-defendant supplier, Everwear Products, Inc. [Everwear]. The crux of Rowland's claim was that Everwear supplied an allegedly defective component part which (a) Rowland later installed in a truck and (b) ultimately caused the alleged injury to the plaintiff in this action, Willie A. Lee [Lee].
We have no trouble in affirming the summary judgment on the indemnity claim. The law is well-settled that when a manufacturer of a finished product is held strictly liable for damages caused to a third person by a defective component part that was purchased from a supplier and integrated into the finished product, the said manufacturer is entitled to recover indemnity from the party supplying the defective component part, provided the manufacturer was not himself negligent in either creating or failing to discover the defect. See Houdaille Industries v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490, 493-94 (Fla.1979); Burbage v. Boiler Engineering & Supply Co., 433 Pa. 319, 249 A.2d 563 (Pa.1969); Wetherington, Tort Liability in Florida, 8 Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 383, 409-10 (1980); Annot., 3 A.L.R.3d 1016 (1965). No indemnity was permissible in this case because it is plain on this record that the defendant truck manufacturer Rowland was at fault in selecting a product that was designed in a patently defective manner and in negligently installing that product on the truck in question.
We also have no trouble in affirming the dismissal of the contribution claim because the co-defendant supplier Everwear settled with the plaintiff Lee in this cause and received an otherwise good faith release from the said plaintiff. Under the specific terms of Florida's contribution statute [§ 768.31(5), Fla.Stat. (1983) ], this showing bars the instant contribution claim. Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority v. Simmons, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazer v. A.F. Munsterman, Inc.
...15; Pearson Ford Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (1969), 273 Cal.App.2d 269, 276, 78 Cal.Rptr. 279, 284; Rowland Truck Equipment, Inc. v. Everware Products, Inc. (Fla.App.1985), 468 So.2d 393, 394; Kennedy v. City of Sawyer (1980), 228 Kan. 439, 459, 618 P.2d 788, 802; Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, I......
-
Jones v. Aero-Chem Corp., CV-86-188-GF.
...583 P.2d 276 (1978); Burbage v. Boiler Engineering & Supply Co., 433 Pa. 319, 249 A.2d 563 (1969); Rowland Truck Equipment, Inc. v. Everwear Products, Inc., 468 So.2d 393 (Fla.App. 1985). Having considered the justifications expressed by those courts which have addressed the propriety of al......
-
Eastern Refractories v. Forty-Eight Insulations
...the manufacturer was not himself negligent in either creating or failing to discover the defect. Rowland Truck Equipment v. Everwear Products, 468 So.2d 393, 394 (Fla.App. 1985) (emphasis in In determining whether or not a party is entitled to indemnification, the Florida courts apply a "pa......
- Owens v. State, 84-962