6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2020 0 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 . 2015Aubin, 97 So.3d at 894 . | 1 | 2 |
William P. Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporationgreen2 sentences2020The supreme court explained that “[t]he critical difference regarding design defects between the Second Restatement and the Third Restatement is that the Third Restatement not only replaces the consumer expectations test with the risk utility test, but also requires the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable alternative design.” Id. at 505 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2020“Under the consumer expectations test, a product is considered to be defective ‘where the product is, at the time it leaves the seller’s hands, in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, which will be unreasonably dangerous to [the consumer].’” Id. at 513 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. g. (1965)). | 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 |
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 13-01 (PRODUCTS LIABILITY)green1 sentence2016Cases —Report No. 13-01, 160 So.3d 869, 871 (Fla.2015) (employing both the consumer expectations test and the risk utility test as alternative definitions of design defect). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2007Pennsylvania courts have refused to embrace the risk-utility analysis in such situations, See Miller v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 679 F.Supp. 485, 489 (E..D.Pa.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Standard Jury Inst.-Civil Cases (No. 02-2)green1 sentence2007See Standard Jury InstructionsCivil Cases, 872 So.2d 893 (Fla.2004). | 1 | 1 |
AUBURN MACH. WORKS, CO., INC. v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2004See also Auburn, 366 So.2d at 1167; Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Light v. Weldarc Co., 569 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jones, 566 So.2d at 565 ; Pike v. Frank G. *905 Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 467 P.2d 229 (1970). | 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 |
Cassisi v. Maytag Co.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 |
| 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 sentences2016Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 48 So.3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), 1 this Court had rejected the Second Restatement’s consumer expectations test and determined that after Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), 2 the appropriate standard was the risk utility test articulated in the Third Restatement. 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 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
green
1 sentence2016Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 48 So.3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), 1 this Court had rejected the Second Restatement’s consumer expectations test and determined that after Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), 2 the appropriate standard was the risk utility test articulated in the Third Restatement. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jones v. Heil Co.
green
1 sentence2004See also Auburn, 366 So.2d at 1167; Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Light v. Weldarc Co., 569 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jones, 566 So.2d at 565 ; Pike v. Frank G. *905 Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 467 P.2d 229 (1970). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Light v. Weldarc Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2004See also Auburn, 366 So.2d at 1167; Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Light v. Weldarc Co., 569 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jones, 566 So.2d at 565 ; Pike v. Frank G. *905 Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 467 P.2d 229 (1970). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lisellotte Moyer, Etc. v. Martin Marietta Corp., Etc.
green
1 sentence2004Applying the familiar risk-utility analysis, [5] it was for the jury to say whether the mere inconvenience caused by a temporary shut-down while the obstruction was cleared [6] was outweighed by the dangers of failing to have a switch-off at all. [7] See, e.g., Moyer v. Martin Marietta Corp., 481 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.1973). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co.
green
2 sentences2004See also Auburn, 366 So.2d at 1167; Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Light v. Weldarc Co., 569 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jones, 566 So.2d at 565 ; Pike v. Frank G. *905 Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 467 P.2d 229 (1970). 2004See also Auburn, 366 So.2d at 1167; Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Light v. Weldarc Co., 569 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jones, 566 So.2d at 565 ; Pike v. Frank G. *905 Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 467 P.2d 229 (1970). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004See also Auburn, 366 So.2d at 1167; Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Light v. Weldarc Co., 569 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jones, 566 So.2d at 565 ; Pike v. Frank G. *905 Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 467 P.2d 229 (1970). | 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 |
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.