Savage v. Jacobsen Mfg. Co.
396 So.2d 731, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19140 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product is not considered 'defective' for purposes of strict products liability simply because a nonskid surface, designed to wear off, does so with normal use, especially when the purchaser was aware that the surface would wear off and that it had, in fact, worn off prior to an accident.
Facts:
- On December 23, 1971, Jacobsen Manufacturing Company manufactured a lawn-mowing tractor with a grey, nonskid, painted surface on its platform.
- The tractor was delivered to U.S. Homes of Florida, Inc. (U.S. Homes) with the nonskid surface intact.
- Gene Lanfair, a supervisor at U.S. Homes, testified that the platform had a 'gritty' painted surface when delivered and was not slippery, but he recognized that the painted surface would probably wear off.
- James Savage, an employee at Gulf Gate Golf Club and husband of the appellant, performed mechanical maintenance on the tractor and had driven it multiple times.
- Approximately one week before the accident, James Savage noted the tractor platform was slippery from morning dew and hydraulic fluid leaking from a reservoir, a condition he described as 'quite common' for such mowers.
- Several weeks prior to the accident, James Savage asked Lanfair to purchase nonskid paint to recoat equipment, including this tractor, but Lanfair did not do so.
- On April 26, 1975, Sharon Savage, while working for U.S. Homes as an operator of mowing equipment, slipped and fell while dismounting from the tractor.
- Sharon Savage alleged she fell because there was no nonskid surface on the platform at the time of her fall.
- The nonskid painted surface had, in fact, worn off by the time of Sharon Savage's injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Savage (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Jacobsen Manufacturing Company (defendant) in a trial court, alleging strict liability in tort for damages.
- The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Jacobsen Manufacturing Company.
- Sharon Savage (appellant) appealed the final summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the normal wearing off of a product's nonskid surface, which the purchaser knew would occur and had observed prior to an accident, constitute a 'defect' sufficient to establish strict products liability against the manufacturer?
Opinions:
Majority - BOARDMAN, Judge
No, the normal wearing off of a product's nonskid surface, which the purchaser knew would occur and had observed prior to an accident, does not constitute a 'defect' sufficient to establish strict products liability against the manufacturer. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that there was no showing of a defect because the record lacked evidence that the worn-off nonskid surface deviated from the norm, failed to meet industry standards, or constituted a latent, functional defect. The purchaser, U.S. Homes, was aware that the painted surface would eventually wear off and that it had, in fact, worn off prior to the accident. Therefore, the platform did not present an 'unexpected danger' to the purchaser. Citing West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., strict liability requires a product to have a 'defect' that causes injury, and the product must be 'unreasonably dangerous' (i.e., dangerous beyond what an ordinary consumer would contemplate). The court found persuasive the reasoning in Foster v. Marshall, a Louisiana case which held that the wearing out of a component part (a cotter pin) with normal use did not constitute a defect, as manufacturers are not expected to design parts that never wear out and are entitled to anticipate reasonable maintenance. To hold otherwise would make the manufacturer an insurer of its product, which is not the intent of strict liability law.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'defect' element of strict products liability in Florida, specifically distinguishing between a manufacturing or design flaw and normal wear and tear of a product's components. It reinforces that manufacturers are not absolute insurers against all possible product-related injuries, particularly when a product feature (like a nonskid surface) is known to degrade with use and the purchaser is aware of this degradation. The decision emphasizes the 'consumer contemplation test' for 'unreasonably dangerous' products, suggesting that a danger that is expected or known to the user/purchaser does not trigger strict liability, thereby limiting the scope of manufacturer liability in such scenarios.
