Case ID: so2d_340/html/0539-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. NATHAN, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AIRMART COIN LAUNDRIES, INC., Appellant, v. The MAYTAG COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 76-573.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 20, 1976.
    Jones & Montgomery, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Adams, George, Lee & Schulte and David L. Willing, Miami, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HAVER-FIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, 153 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. J. C. Penney Company, 166 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Florida Power & Light Company v. General Safety Equipment Company, 213 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968). Compare Starkey v. Miami Aviation Corporation, 214 So.2d 738 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968).

NATHAN, J.,

concurring specially.

I concur in the result only, on the grounds that the third party complaint, as amended, did not allege any ultimate or specific facts detailing the alleged defects of the machines manufactured by Maytag. However, in all other respects I am of the opinion that Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. White Motor Corp., 316 So.2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), is controlling.