implied warranty doctrine in Florida

1990Under the opinion of this court in this very case, ( Lochrane Engineering, Inc. v. Willingham Realgrowth Investment Fund, LTD., et al., 552 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)), Anderson moves this court for an award of attorney's fees on the basis that while Willingham recovered a judgment against Anderson on the implied warranty claim, that claim did not arise out of the express contract but was implied in law and that as to the express contract claim he, Anderson, was the prevailing party.

1986That Court stated: “And, unless the legislature has in unequivocal terms spelled out to the courts of this state that it has, by the enactment of the omnibus Uniform Commercial Code severed the implied warranty doctrine from the jurisprudence of this state, we will not be the operator of the guillotine.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Favors v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., (Fla. App.) 309 So.2d 69 held that the Florida cases on implied warranty prior to the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code which became effective January 1, 1967 are still applicable and that the are

1986That Court stated: “And, unless the legislature has in unequivocal terms spelled out to the courts of this state that it has, by the enactment of the omnibus Uniform Commercial Code severed the implied warranty doctrine from the jurisprudence of this state, we will not be the operator of the guillotine.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Favors v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., (Fla. App.) 309 So.2d 69 held that the Florida cases on implied warranty prior to the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code which became effective January 1, 1967 are still applicable and that the are

1975Chattel Made Under Dangerous Plan or Design A manufacturer of a chattel made under a plan or design which makes it dangerous for the uses for which it is manufactured is subject to liability to others whom he should expect to use the chattel or to be endangered by its probably use for physical harm caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care in the adoption of a safe plan or design." This rule has been approved in Florida in the cases of Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1956), and King v. Douglas Aircraft, supra. Plaintiffs were foreseeable users of the product within the mea

1975The non-liability of a hospital on breach of implied warranty was upheld by the Third District Court of Appeal in Hoder v. Sayet, 196 So.2d 205 (Fla.App. 1967), wherein a plaintiff sought damages allegedly resulting from a blood transfusion in an action against a hospital and a commercial blood bank.

1975Chattel Made Under Dangerous Plan or Design A manufacturer of a chattel made under a plan or design which makes it dangerous for the uses for which it is manufactured is subject to liability to others whom he should expect to use the chattel or to be endangered by its probably use for physical harm caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care in the adoption of a safe plan or design." This rule has been approved in Florida in the cases of Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1956), and King v. Douglas Aircraft, supra. Plaintiffs were foreseeable users of the product within the mea

1975Chattel Made Under Dangerous Plan or Design A manufacturer of a chattel made under a plan or design which makes it dangerous for the uses for which it is manufactured is subject to liability to others whom he should expect to use the chattel or to be endangered by its probably use for physical harm caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care in the adoption of a safe plan or design." This rule has been approved in Florida in the cases of Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1956), and King v. Douglas Aircraft, supra. Plaintiffs were foreseeable users of the product within the mea

1975In Mercy Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Mercy Hospital Blood Bank v. Benitez, 257 So.2d 51 (Fla.App. 1972), the court analogized a blood bank established by a hospital with a commercial blood bank and held that it was liable under the implied warranty doctrine.

1972In Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 1966, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P.2d 698 , the court said: "The foregoing decisions ... show the trend of judicial opinion is to invoke the doctrine of implied warranty *15 of fitness in cases involving sales of new houses by the builder.

1972In Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 1966, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P.2d 698 , the court said: "The foregoing decisions ... show the trend of judicial opinion is to invoke the doctrine of implied warranty *15 of fitness in cases involving sales of new houses by the builder.

1971Green v. American Tobacco Co., 391 F.2d 97, 111 ; 409 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir., 1969).

1971Green v. American Tobacco Co., 391 F.2d 97, 111 ; 409 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir., 1969).

1968Carter v. Hector Supply Co., Fla. 1961, 128 So.2d 390 ." (Brackets and italics supplied.) The District Court's reversal of the judgment for petitioners in this action, founded on both negligence and warranty, rests first upon its decision that "regardless of other refinements and requirements" of the implied warranty doctrine, petitioners may not claim such remedy unless they are (1) users of the products involved or (2) in privity with the respondent gas company.

1966The answer is, “No.” In the case of Brookshire v. Florida Bendix Co., Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 55, 58 , the liability of a 'bailor was defined: “ * * * As to the third, the warranty theory, there is no absolute liability on a bailor or lessor of personal property who rents or permits its use by another.