Case ID: so2d_590/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. HUBBART, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilner BELIZAIRE, Appellant, v. Robert W. LYDIC d/b/a Tidewater Machinery Company, Appellee.
    No. 90-2499.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 5, 1991.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1992.
    Buschbom, Panter & Panter, Lisa Bennett, for appellant.
    Merritt, Sikes & Ennis and Francine D. Holbrook, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and COPE, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. McCormick Machinery v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 523 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Ryan v. Atlantic Fertilizer & Chemical Company, 515 So.2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Willage v. Law Offices of Wallace & Breslow, P.A., 415 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Keith v. Russel T. Bundy & Associates, Inc., 495 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Manufacturing Co., 238 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Royal v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., 205 So.2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 211 So.2d 214 (Fla.1968); Wisner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 So.2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Section 672.316(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1989).

HUBBART, Judge

(dissenting).

I would reverse the summary judgment for the defendant retailer in this products liability action and remand for further proceedings. In my view, a triable issue is presented on this record as to whether the defendant retailer was guilty of negligence in selling a used rubber heating machine which lacked a highly sensitive knee safety device to instantly stop the machine in case of an emergency — which alleged defect caused foreseeable injuries to the plaintiff, a workman, whose hand was tragically crushed in the machine while operating it. Although the machine did have an overhead hand-operated safety device, it was not conveniently located or accessible to a workman whose hand or hands might become caught in the machine while operating it in a sitting position — as opposed to the knee-operated safety device which a seated workman, as here, could easily touch in case of an emergency and shut .off the machine. Indeed, the machine in this case was, in fact, originally manufactured with a knee-safety device on it. The defendant retailer was in the business of selling such machines and should have known that a machine without such a safety device was unsafe. Accordingly, a summary judgment for the defendant retailer was singularly inappropriate. See Carter v. Hector Supply Co., 128 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla.1961); Marrillia v. Lyn Craft Boat Co., 271 So.2d 204, 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see also Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977).