Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 73--1460
| Decision Date | 29 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1460,73--1460 |
| Citation | 303 So.2d 336 |
| Parties | SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and Lawnlite Company, Appellants, v. Milton McAFOOS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellants.
Harton, Perse & Ginsberg; Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Defendant-appellants appeal an adverse final judgment awarding plaintiff the sum of $130,000 plus costs in this personal injury action.
On May 11, 1972 plaintiff-appellee, Milton McAfoos, purchased from defendant-appellant, Sears, Roebuck and Company, an eight foot aluminum extention ladder which defendant Sears' salesman assured plaintiff was safe and sufficient to use in painting the outside of his house. The ladder was sold as a Sears' product, but was manufactured for Sears by defendant-appellant Lawnlite. On May 23, 1972 while plaintiff was standing on the ladder painting his house, the ladder collapsed and plaintiff fell to the ground and, as a result thereof, sustained serious injury. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant action for damages against the defendant-appellants Sears Roebuck and Company and Lawnlite. The cause proceeded to a jury trial at the conclusion of which the jury entered a verdict in favor of the appellee in the amount of $130,000. Final judgment was entered thereon after denial of defendants' post trial motions, including a motion for new trial. This appeal ensued.
Defendants first contend that plaintiff's expert's testimony was based on a demonstrably false assumption and therefore the case should be remanded for a new trial. We cannot agree.
As to this issue, the record reflects that in pretrial motions plaintiff requested drawings from which the subject ladder was constructed. In response thereto, defendant company sent plans for the 8, 10, 12 and 14 foot extension ladders which came to be known as the 'Anderson drawings', which at the onset of the trial were stipulated to as being authentic and ultimately admitted into evidence. Plaintiff's expert witness studied these drawings and testified at the trial that the subject ladder did not conform to the specifications contained in Anderson drawing XC--18--33 with regard to the thickness of the metal used in the construction thereof. No objection thereto was made by defense counsel at that time. Subsequently, defense counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prime Mortgage Usa, Inc. v. Nichols
...property to it where party refused all discovery attempts in regards to the property's ownership); see also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 303 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla.Ct.App. 1974) (party could not complain that witness testified using a drawing for a product other than the one at issue, wher......
-
Francois v. Wainwright
...counsel's improper remarks when plaintiff's attorney invited the remarks by his own improper conduct); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 303 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974) (appellants could not complain of error caused in part by their negligent compliance with discovery requests); Un......
-
State v. Osvath
...359 (Fla.1953); Rawls v. State, 596 So.2d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla.1992); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 303 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Nat Harrison Assocs. v. Byrd, 256 So.2d 50, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA There is a very limited and rarely invoked fundamen......
-
Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co. v. Patterson
...Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701, 169 So. 372 (1936); Bishop v. Watson, 367 So.2d 1073 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 303 So.2d 336 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); H. I. Holding Co. v. Dade County, 129 So.2d 693 (Fla.3d DCA 1961). We find no other error, and the judgment below is AFFI......