Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...[2] In Barfield v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company et al., [3] we held that employees of Gulf Oil Company were entitled to bring suit in implied warranty against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective hose. More recently, the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 672.318, Fla....

...in that it fails to allege that Paul Taylor falls within the class of persons to whom such an implied warranty extends. The class of possible plaintiffs in a personal injury action based upon breach of a seller's implied warranty is circumscribed by § 672.318, [5] Fla.Stat., as interpreted by Florida courts....

...nd that the plaintiff, Paul Taylor, owned it at the time of the accident. (Complaint, ¶ [4]) Plaintiffs fail to allege either that Paul Taylor purchased the Honda motorcycle from the defendant or that he was within the class of persons indicated in § 672.318....

...ly extend to Taylor. However, if Taylor purchased the motorcycle secondhand from an unrelated third party, then in light of the holding in Barry v. Ivarson, Inc., supra , Taylor would be outside the scope of American Honda's warranty liability under § 672.318....

...e complaint must allege compliance with § 672.607(3)(a) if it is to state a cause of action for breach of implied warranty. The situation is quite different, however, if the plaintiffs are merely warranty beneficiaries within the class indicated in § 672.318....

...As noted above, fact-based pleading is not required in federal diversity cases, even where otherwise required under state procedure. [4] The manufacturer, Honda Motor Co. Ltd., was originally named in the complaint, but was dismissed for lack of proper service. Order dated November 3, 1981. [5] § 672.318, as amended in 1967, states: A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer, who is a guest in his home or who is an employee, servant or agent of his buyer if it...

...ay use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude nor limit the operation of this section. [6] Barry held that an implied warranty of a furniture dealer did not extend, under § 672.318, to lessees of the original purchaser....

...After careful consideration of these claims we find them to have no effect on our decision in this matter. [4] The implied warranty cause of action remains unaltered where privity of contract exists and in those cases which fall within the scope of § 672.318, Fla....

...Thus "contractual relationship" never entered the case. Appellant's reply brief contains no response to appellee's argument on this point. There is no "privity" requirement for implied warranty action by an employer of a purchaser if it is "reasonable to expect such person may use" the product. Section 672.318, Florida Statutes....

...sed superior knowledge as to the dangerous propensities of the products, that Plaintiffs relied on Defendants' skill, superior knowledge and judgment to furnish a safe product and the defective product caused injury to the Plaintiffs. See Fla. Stat. § 672.318 (1985)....

...In other cases, use the first bracketed sentence instead. COMMENT 1. Privity. These charges on product liability issues presuppose that any question of privity has been resolved in favor of the claim. For the effect of strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see § 672.318, Florida Statutes (1987), and Kramer v....

...Florida Statute § 672.314 states that "[u]nless excluded or modified (s. 672.316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind." Florida Statute § 672.318 provides that: [a] seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is a guest in his home or who is an employee, servant or agent of his buyer if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume o...

...A seller may not exclude nor limit the operation of this section. The action for breach of implied warranty exists only in contract and requires privity between plaintiff and defendant. Affiliates for Evaluation Therapy, Inc. v. Viasyn Corp., 500 So.2d 688, 692 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1987). The clear language of § 672.318 provides that the implied warranty extends to a buyer's employee....

...ery as required by Florida Statute § 672.607(3)(a). The notice requirement does not, under Florida law, extend to persons such as plaintiff who are not "buyers" of the product in question, but are rather warranty beneficiaries under Florida Statute § 672.318....

...In other cases, use the first bracketed sentence instead. COMMENT 1. Privity. These charges on product liability issues presuppose that any question of privity has been resolved in favor of the claim. For the effect of strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see § 672.318, Florida Statutes Fla....

...erformed pursuant to the contract. In the case of "goods," there is an implied warranty that such goods are fit for the purpose intended by the contract. Section 672.315, Florida Statutes. And this implied warranty runs to third-party beneficiaries. Section 672.318, Florida Statutes....

intended beneficiaries. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.-318 (“A seller’s warranty whether express or implied

of-warranty previously requiring-privity, see ■§ 672.318, Fla. Stat. (Í98-7-), — and Kramer v. — Piper

...If it is necessary to submit a factual issue on privity to the jury, the committee recommends that it be submitted in the style of a preliminary charge on status or duty. For the effect of the strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see F.S. 672.318 and Kramer, 520 So.2d at 39 & n.4. 403.14 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim on this issue, then your verdict [on this issue] [on the claim of (...

...Appellants base their cause of action on the theory of implied warranty of merchantibility under F.S. § 672.314 (1969), F.S.A. Therefore, the sole question which appellants would have this court determine is whether plaintiffs-lessees come within the ambit of § 672.318 which extends the provisions of F.S....

...Newsom, 382 F.2d 395 (10th Cir.1967) and Simpson v. Powered Products of Mich., Inc., et al., 24 Conn.Sup. 409, 192 A.2d 555 (1963) as indicative of the trend which the law in the case sub judice should follow. Together with these two cases, appellants submit that F.S. § 672.318 (1969), F.S.A., should be construed to include plaintiffs in their position as a natural extension of the legislature's intent as enunciated in the guidelines set forth in its enactment of F.S. §§ 671.102, 671.106 (1969), F.S.A. Although appellants also urge this court to consider what may be called the underlying theme in F.S. § 672.318 (1969), F.S.A., of nullifying the privity concept in warranty actions under the Uniform Commercial Code, we are of the opinion, as the authors in the official comment to the code suggest in § 672.2-318, F.S.A., that this can only be done...

...can be a smooth transition in resolving the prior law of this state with that of the code in those areas of inconsistency which are encountered. We hold that appellants as lessees under the facts of this case are not entitled to the benefits of F.S. § 672.318 (1969), F.S.A., and, therefore, affirm....

...Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 362, aff'd Fla. 1966, 181 So.2d 641). We also note that irrespective of whether the seller is a manufacturer or a retailer, employees of the buyer are now expressly named as third-party beneficiaries within F.S. § 672.318 (1969), F.S.A. Not only are appellants not within the category of third-party beneficiaries as contemplated in F.S. § 672.318 (1969), F.S.A., but there is a question of foreseeability [1 Anderson's Uniform Commercial Code § 2-318:4(1)] as the statute provides: "A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or h...

...olved and that claimant is one to whom, as a matter of law, a warranty was extended. any question of privity has been resolved in favor of the claim. For the effect of strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see § 672.318, Florida Statutes (1987), and Kramer v....

...That theory is deleted in order to gain The committee purposefully omitted from this hypothetical case, and from Model Charge 7, any possible claim by John Smith against the retailer and manufacturer based on a theory of implied warranty. Whether or not Smith was in privity with *828 either defendant, see § 672.318, Florida Statutes (1987), and regardless of any implied warranty claim that may have existed notwithstanding his strict liability claim, see Kramer v....

...d superior knowledge as to the dangerous propensities of the products, that Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ skill, superior knowledge and judgment to furnish a safe product and the defective product caused injury to the Plaintiffs. See Fla. Stat. § 672.318 (1985)....

Smith was in privity with either defendant, see § 672.318, Fla. Stat. (1996), and regardless of any implied