7 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubingreen2 sentences2016See Font I, 118 So.3d 1005 . *326 Following Agrofollajes, this Court had determined in Aubin I that the trial court erred in failing to apply the Third Restatement’s exclusive adoption of the risk utility test for a design defect claim, which imposes on plaintiffs the requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design. 97 So.3d at 893-894 . 2015In Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So.3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict and $6,624,150 judgment in Aubin’s favor, after making three key holdings: (1) the trial court erred in failing to apply the Restatement (Third) of Torts (“Third Restatement”), which exclusively adopts the “risk utility” test for a design defect claim and imposes on plaintiffs the requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design; (2) the design defect was not a cause of Aubin’s damages; and (3) the jury instructions given by the trial court regarding the failure | 1 | 2 |
Liriano v. Hobart Corp.green1 sentence2026Co., 245 So. 2d 259, 263, 265 (Fla. 4th a verdict until long after the rendering jury had been discharged.”); Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 241 (1998) (“[L]iability can exist under a failure-to-warn theory in cases in which the substantial modification defense . . . might otherwise preclude a design defect claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. California Chemical Companygreen1 sentence2026Co., 245 So. 2d 259, 263, 265 (Fla. 4th a verdict until long after the rendering jury had been discharged.”); Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 241 (1998) (“[L]iability can exist under a failure-to-warn theory in cases in which the substantial modification defense . . . might otherwise preclude a design defect claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Font v. Union Carbide Corp.green1 sentence2016See Font I, 118 So.3d 1005 . *326 Following Agrofollajes, this Court had determined in Aubin I that the trial court erred in failing to apply the Third Restatement’s exclusive adoption of the risk utility test for a design defect claim, which imposes on plaintiffs the requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design. 97 So.3d at 893-894 . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 715682green1 sentence2006Reynolds Tobacco Co., 80 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 1996) ("Like the dangers of alcohol consumption, the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community."), with Boerner v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Co., 394 F.3d 594, 599 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding widower presented sufficient evidence to prevail on a design defect claim because "historically[,] the average smoker did not fully appreciate the nature or severity of the health risks associated with smoking"). | 1 | 1 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.green2 sentences2006See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 523 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that the 1969 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act "does not generally preempt `state-law obligations to avoid marketing cigarettes with manufacturing defects or to use a demonstrably safer alternative design for cigarettes'" (quoting Brief for Respondents 14)); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932, 940 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524-25 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , for the proposition that the 1969 Act does not "`pre-empt petit 2006See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 523 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that the 1969 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act "does not generally preempt `state-law obligations to avoid marketing cigarettes with manufacturing defects or to use a demonstrably safer alternative design for cigarettes'" (quoting Brief for Respondents 14)); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932, 940 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524-25 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , for the proposition that the 1969 Act does not "`pre-empt petit | 1 | 1 |
Laschke v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2006See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 523 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that the 1969 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act "does not generally preempt `state-law obligations to avoid marketing cigarettes with manufacturing defects or to use a demonstrably safer alternative design for cigarettes'" (quoting Brief for Respondents 14)); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932, 940 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524-25 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , for the proposition that the 1969 Act does not "`pre-empt petit | 1 | 1 |
Henry W. Boerner, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Jane Boerner, Deceased v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Companygreen1 sentence2006Reynolds Tobacco Co., 80 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 1996) ("Like the dangers of alcohol consumption, the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community."), with Boerner v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Co., 394 F.3d 594, 599 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding widower presented sufficient evidence to prevail on a design defect claim because "historically[,] the average smoker did not fully appreciate the nature or severity of the health risks associated with smoking"). | 1 | 1 |
Ferlanti v. Liggett Group, Inc.green1 sentence2006See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 523 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that the 1969 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act "does not generally preempt `state-law obligations to avoid marketing cigarettes with manufacturing defects or to use a demonstrably safer alternative design for cigarettes'" (quoting Brief for Respondents 14)); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932, 940 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524-25 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , for the proposition that the 1969 Act does not "`pre-empt petit | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2006See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 523 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that the 1969 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act "does not generally preempt `state-law obligations to avoid marketing cigarettes with manufacturing defects or to use a demonstrably safer alternative design for cigarettes'" (quoting Brief for Respondents 14)); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932, 940 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524-25 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , for the proposition that the 1969 Act does not "`pre-empt petit | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kohler Co. v. Marcotte
green
2 sentences2015Thus, in approving the use of the Third Restatement, the Third District utilized the risk utility test as the legal standard for a design defect claim, in which the plaintiff must demonstrate that “the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.” Kohler, 907 So. 2d at 599 . 2015Thus, in approving the use of the Third Restatement, the Third District utilized the risk utility test as the legal standard for a design defect claim, in which the plaintiff must demonstrate that “the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.” Kohler, 907 So.2d at 599 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp.
green
1 sentence2015In Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So.3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict and $6,624,150 judgment in Aubin’s favor, after making three key holdings: (1) the trial court erred in failing to apply the Restatement (Third) of Torts (“Third Restatement”), which exclusively adopts the “risk utility” test for a design defect claim and imposes on plaintiffs the requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design; (2) the design defect was not a cause of Aubin’s damages; and (3) the jury instructions given by the trial court regarding the failure | 1 | 2015–2015 |
West v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015In Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict and $6,624,150 judgment in Aubin’s favor, after making three key holdings: (1) the trial court erred in failing to apply the Restatement (Third) of Torts (“Third Restatement”), which exclusively adopts the “risk utility” test for a design defect claim and imposes on plaintiffs the requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design; (2) the design defect was not a cause of Aubin’s damages; and (3) the jury instructions given by the trial court regarding the failure 2015In Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So.3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict and $6,624,150 judgment in Aubin’s favor, after making three key holdings: (1) the trial court erred in failing to apply the Restatement (Third) of Torts (“Third Restatement”), which exclusively adopts the “risk utility” test for a design defect claim and imposes on plaintiffs the requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design; (2) the design defect was not a cause of Aubin’s damages; and (3) the jury instructions given by the trial court regarding the failure | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Company
green
1 sentence2008NOTES [1] Greco v. Bucciconi Eng'g Co., 283 F.Supp. 978 (W.D.Pa.1967). [2] The Torres majority's decision to affirm dismissal of the design defect claim is less easy to understand or explain. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Arnitz
green
1 sentence2007Nevertheless, not only our court in Ferlanti but also the Second District in Philip Morris USA, Inc., v. Arnitz, 933 So.2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), has held that a design defect claim against a cigarette manufacturer is not preempted by federal statutes. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.