CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2955038
...Aqua-Flo, Inc., 23 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.Ct.App.2000); Allen v. Minnstar, Inc.,
8 F.3d 1470 (10th Cir.1993). This is simply not correct. The plaintiff introduced extensive evidence, both expert and lay, which showed that such a device was indeed feasible at that time. [3] See §
768.1257, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 576, 2005 WL 156775
...tsoever to other ladder manufacturers. Bohack’s attorney agreed to the entry of an order granting the motion, apparently unaware of its full scope. At trial, the order prevented Bohaek from presenting evidence that would have been admissible under section 768.1257, Florida Statutes (2003), which, in a defective design case, allows evidence pertaining to “the state of the art of scientific and technical knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the time of manufacture.” In spite of...
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...Union Carbide Corp.,
177 So. 3d 489 (Fla.
2015). The same amendment is also made to instruction 403.15e.
Instruction 403.7b is further amended to add the following language to the
definition of design defect to better track the statutory language of section
768.1257, Florida Statutes (2019):
[In deciding whether (the product) was defective because of a
design defect, you shall consider the state-of-the-art of scientific and
technical knowledge and other circumstances t...
...be instructed on the consumer expectations or risk/benefit test. Current Notes on
-2-
Use 3 and 4 are deleted and the remaining Notes on Use are renumbered. New
Note on Use 5 is added to refer the reader to section 768.1257, Florida Statutes, for
the state-of-the-art defense.
Next, pertaining to instructions 403.17 and 403.19, the jury instructions on
apportionment of fault are revised insofar as they are currently inconsistent with
the instructions on legal causation and comparative fault....
...Samuel
Friedland Family Enterprises v. Amoroso,
630 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1994); Rivera v.
Baby Trend, Inc.,
914 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Porter v. Rosenberg,
650
So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
5. For the state-of-the-art defense see, F.S.
768.1257.
403.8 STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN
A product is defective when the foreseeable risks of harm from the
product could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable
instructions or warnings, and the failure...
...knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the time of (the product’s)
manufacture, not at the time of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.18d
Instruction 403.18d applies only in defective design cases. F.S. 768.1257.
e....
