Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cassisi v. Maytag Co.green2 sentences2007Id. at 1145 (footnotes omitted). 2004Searle & Co., 576 So.2d 728, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (the test weighs a product's benefits against its known risks); Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (the test weighs the utility of the design versus the magnitude of the inherent risk). [5] In 1973, this Court adopted the comparative negligence doctrine in place of the contributory negligence doctrine. | 2 | 3 |
Force v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2020See, e.g., Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So. 2d 103 , 109– 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (concluding that while “there may indeed be products that are too complex for a logical application of the consumer- expectation standard[,]” the consumer expectation standard nonetheless applied to seat belts, which were “on the cusp” of being “too complex for an ordinary consumer to have any expectations concerning their proper operation”); Tillman v. C.R. 2007See Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So.2d 103, 106-07 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). | 2 | 2 |
William P. Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporationgreen2 sentences2025See Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 503 (Fla. 2015) (“Th[e] [consumer expectations] test intrinsically recognizes that a manufacturer plays a central role in establishing the consumers’ expectations for a particular product, which in turn motivates consumers to purchase the product.”); Liggett Grp., Inc. v. Davis, 973 So. 2d 467, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (Warner, J., specially concurring) (“[W]e look to the consumer expectation test to determine strict liability . . . . 2020Notably, Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015), did not categorically disapprove of the risk-benefit test. | 1 | 2 |
LEGGETT GROUP, INC. v. Davisgreen1 sentence2025See Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 503 (Fla. 2015) (“Th[e] [consumer expectations] test intrinsically recognizes that a manufacturer plays a central role in establishing the consumers’ expectations for a particular product, which in turn motivates consumers to purchase the product.”); Liggett Grp., Inc. v. Davis, 973 So. 2d 467, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (Warner, J., specially concurring) (“[W]e look to the consumer expectation test to determine strict liability . . . . | 1 | 1 |
Tillman v. C.R. Bard, Inc.green1 sentence2020Bard, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 1307, 1339 (M.D. | 1 | 1 |
Standard Jury Inst.-Civil Cases (No. 02-2)green1 sentence2007See Standard Jury Instructions—Civil Cases, 872 So.2d 893 (Fla.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. GD Searle & Co., Inc.green1 sentence2004Searle & Co., 576 So.2d 728, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (the test weighs a product's benefits against its known risks); Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (the test weighs the utility of the design versus the magnitude of the inherent risk). [5] In 1973, this Court adopted the comparative negligence doctrine in place of the contributory negligence doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2004Their argument is summed up by the following passage from the appellees' answer brief: Perhaps the most significant problem with the consumer-expectations test is *109 that an ordinary consumer of a complex product like an automobile "simply has `no idea' how it should perform in all foreseeable situations, or how safe it should be made against all foreseeable hazards." Soule v. General Motors, 8 Cal.4th 548 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298, 308 (1994). 2004Their argument is summed up by the following passage from the appellees' answer brief: Perhaps the most significant problem with the consumer-expectations test is *109 that an ordinary consumer of a complex product like an automobile "simply has `no idea' how it should perform in all foreseeable situations, or how safe it should be made against all foreseeable hazards." Soule v. General Motors, 8 Cal.4th 548 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298, 308 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Phipps v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences1981See Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337 , 363 A.2d 955 (1976); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., supra, note 8; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1979). 1981See Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337 , 363 A.2d 955 (1976); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., supra, note 8; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation
green
1 sentence2020Litig., 742 F. Supp. 2d 460 , 470 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (applying Florida law and concluding that “prescription pharmaceuticals are too complex for the straight-forward application of the consumer expectation test”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007I do not agree with Judge Gross, however, that Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006), gave a "green light" to strict liability design defect claims. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Mfg. Co.
green
1 sentence2004A Florida case called to our attention by Ford and Mazda is Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Manufacturing Co., 816 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Zimmer, Inc. v. Birnbaum
green
1 sentence2004First, the proposal updates the case law cited for definitions of the term "unreasonably dangerous." Second, the proposal provides a caution regarding potential two-issue rule problems [2] that might arise if a *894 jury is instructed under PL 5 on both the consumer-expectation test [3] and the risk-utility test. [4] See Zimmer, Inc. v. Birnbaum, 758 So.2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Fremaint v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2004From the automobile in general, the court interpolated to seatbelts in particular, and said that "Ordinary consumers are ill-equipped to decide what minimum safety to expect from seatbelts once a vehicle is involved in an accident, as manufacturers cannot warranty against all foreseeable injuries caused inside properly working vehicles." Id. at 30 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck
green
1 sentence1981See Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337 , 363 A.2d 955 (1976); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., supra, note 8; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.