Title: West v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Inc.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

336 So. 2d 80 (1976)
Leon WEST, Individually and As Personal Representative of the Estate of Gwendolyn West, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 46709.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 21, 1976.
*82 Robert Orseck of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Ser & Keyfetz, and Berkell, Strauss & Benjamin, Miami, for plaintiff-appellee.
James S. Usich of the Law Offices of Papy, Levy, Carruthers & Poole, Coral Gables, for defendant-appellant.
James E. Tribble and Mark Hicks of Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, Miami, for Dade County Defense Bar Ass'n, amicus curiae.
William M. Hicks, Miami, for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
ADKINS, Justice.
This case is presented on certificate as authorized by Fla. Stat. § 25.031, F.S.A., and in Rule 4.61, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 504 F.2d 967, in an appeal from a final judgment of the trial court which applied the doctrine of strict liability in a products liability suit.
The court states that:
Products liability deals with recourse for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of a product and, in the past, has covered actions for negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and fraud. These theories of recovery have been refined and consolidated to such an extent that the distinctions frequently have more theoretical than practical significance. As a result the theory of strict liability has evolved to complement the traditional conditional warranty and negligence theories. A statement of this theory appears in the American Law Institute Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402 A, as follows:
Strict liability was adopted at an early date by the California Supreme Court in Greenman v. Yuba Power Prod., Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049, 1054 (1963):
In the development of products liability case law by the Courts of this State many of the vestiges of the traditional contractual "warranty" have been removed. It was traditionally recognized that, unless there is privity, liability to the consumer should be in tort and not in contract. See Prosser, The Assault Upon the Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer), 69 Yale L.J. 1099, 1133-34 (1960). In Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., 63 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1953), this Court aligned itself with those courts holding that a consumer could bring a suit on the theory of implied warranty against the *85 manufacturer for improper labeling of seed notwithstanding want of privity. The District Court of Appeal in Berstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp., 177 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. App.3d 1965) receded further from the privity requirement when it said:
On certiorari, this opinion was approved by this Court. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp. v. Berstein, 181 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1966).
We made further inroads into the elimination of privity when the product involved was dangerous or an inherently dangerous instrumentality. See Hicks & Sternlieb, Products Warranty Law in Florida  A Realistic Overview, 25 U.Miami L.Rev. 241 (1971); and Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1956). The court stated in Keller v. Eagle Army-Navy Dept. Stores, Inc., 291 So. 2d 58, 60 (Fla.App. 4th 1974):
An exception to the privity requirement involved food products when the court permitted an ultimate consumer to recover against a food manufacturer despite the absence of privity. Blanton v. Cudahy Packing Co., 154 Fla. 872, 19 So. 2d 313 (1944). See also Reese v. Florida Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 256 So. 2d 392 (Fla.App. 1st 1972).
Not only has the court made inroads into the requirement of privity, but has always extended exceptions to broader categories of persons, such as prospective or potential customers (Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., supra; McCarthy v. Florida Ladder Co., 295 So. 2d 707 (Fla.App.2d 1974)); employees of purchasers (Barfield v. Atlantic Coastline R.R. Co., 197 So. 2d 545 (Fla.App.2d 1967)). In Toombs v. Fort Pierce Gas Co., 208 So. 2d 615, 617 (Fla. 1968), the Court designated the product (propane storage gas) as falling within the dangerous instrumentality exception, saying:
The Court held that the dangerous instrumentality exception to the privity requirement was applicable so that liability was extended to persons one should expect to be in the vicinity of the proper use of the chattel.
We approached strict liability in Green v. American Tobacco Co., 154 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1963), which was a suit against the manufacturer and distributor of cigarettes. The Court observed that the suit involved a commodity which was available indiscriminately to the public generally, and applied a rule of absolute or strict liability to the manufacturer. The question certified to this Court by the United States Court of Appeals read as follows:
This Court answered the question as follows:
See also McLeod v. W.S. Merrell Co., 174 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1965).
In a products liability suit against a manufacturer of a commercial product by an ultimate consumer or a user, the sole test has been whether or not the product was reasonably safe for its intended use, as manufactured and designed, when it left the plant of the manufacturer. This Court in Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., 88 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 1956), said:
From the foregoing analysis it is apparent that the Florida courts in many instances have imposed an absolute or strict liability in tort upon a manufacturer for placing a product on the market knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects which cause injury to a human being. The manufacturer, by placing on the market a potentially dangerous product for use and consumption and by inducement and promotion encouraging the use of these products, thereby undertakes a certain and special responsibility toward the consuming public who may be injured by it. We believe that the prior decisions of this Court are in conformity with the principles set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, quoted above. Such a recognition by the Court is no great new departure from present law and, in most instances, accomplishes a change of nomenclature. We should take a realistic view of the doctrine of products liability in Florida, as our distinctions frequently have been of more theoretical than practical significance. See Keeton, Products Liability, 49 Va.L.Rev. 675, 676 (1963).
The court in Royal v. Black and Decker Mfg. Co., 205 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla.App.3d 1967), discussing the trend of Florida decisions toward strict liability, said:
In other words strict liability should be imposed only when a product the manufacturer places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. The user *87 should be protected from unreasonably dangerous products or from a product fraught with unexpected dangers. In order to hold a manufacturer liable on the theory of strict liability in tort, the user must establish the manufacturer's relationship to the product in question, the defect and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product, and the existence of the proximate causal connection between such condition and the user's injuries or damages.
We adopt the doctrine of strict liability as stated by the A.L.I. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402 A. In this, we are not alone.[1]
The Dade County Defense Bar Association, as amicus curiae, questions the authority of this Court to adopt the provisions of the Restatement of Torts § 402A, where the Legislature has spoken on the subject by the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code. It contends that judicial adoption of the strict liability doctrine conflicts with the Uniform Commercial Code.
In Ford Motor Co. v. Pittman, 227 So. 2d 246, 249 (Fla.App. 1st 1969), the court discussed the effect of the U.C.C. upon the doctrine of implied warranty in products liability actions:
Even though the Restatement § 402A and the U.C.C. provide conflicting products liability rules, that fact alone does not establish that a court in a U.C.C. jurisdiction that followed the Restatement § 402A would be improperly ignoring a legislative enactment. This Court would be prevented from following the strict liability rule only if the Legislature intended the U.C.C. warranty remedies to be exclusive in products liability cases. See Strict Tort Liability, 22 Stan.L.Rev. 713, 754 et seq.
In Caruth v. Mariani, 11 Ariz. App. 188, 463 P.2d 83, 87 (1970), a products liability suit based upon strict tort liability, the following appears:
We recognize that there are two parallel but independent bodies of products liability law. One, strict liability, is an action in tort; the other, implied warranty, is an action in contract. An action under the strict liability doctrine eliminates the notice requirement, restricts the effectiveness of disclaimers to situations where it can be reasonably said that the consumer has freely assumed the risk, and abolishes the privity requirement. The doctrine of strict liability does not introduce a notion of "defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property" which is different from the notion of "unmerchantability" as applied in warranty law. With the continued increase of products liability cases, the strict liability doctrine adapts the law to the marketing condition of today's marketing consumer. See Products Liability, 19 Rutgers L.Rev. 692 (1965).
At the present time there is no legislative impediment to the adoption of this doctrine.
We next turn to the question of whether the doctrine of strict liability should be extended to a foreseeable bystander who comes within range of the danger.
The manufacturer unquestionably intends that its product will be used by the public. There would appear to be no logic or reason in denying a right of relief to persons injured by defective merchandise solely on the ground that he was not himself a user of the merchandise. Many products in the hands of the consumer are sophisticated and even mysterious articles, frequently a sealed unit with an alluring exterior rather than a visible assembly of component parts. In today's world it is often only the manufacturer who can fairly be said to know and understand when an article is suitably designed and safely made for its intended purpose. See Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622 (1973).
Toombs v. Ft. Pierce Gas Co., 208 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1968), was an action by the customer of a gas company, his family and bystanders for injuries sustained in the explosion of a propane gas storage tank. The Court held that, with respect to bystanders injured by the explosion, the dangerous instrumentality exception to privity requirement extended the liability of the company to persons one should expect to be in the vicinity of the proper use of the chattel.
*89 The framers of the Restatement did not express an opinion on whether the doctrine should apply where harm befalls persons other than users or consumers. A majority of the courts have said that there is no adequate rationale or theoretical explanation why nonusers and nonconsumers should be denied recovery. See 63 Am.Jur.2d Products Liability § 144; and Darryl v. Ford Motor Co., 440 S.W.2d 630, 633 (Tex. 1969), where the court said:
The court in Caruth v. Mariani, 11 Ariz. App. 188, 463 P.2d 83, 85 (1970), in extending the doctrine to bystanders, said:
The public policy which protects the user and the consumer of a manufactured article should also protect the innocent bystander. Of course, the duty of a manufacturer for breach of which liability will attach runs only to those who suffer personal injury or property damage as the result of using or being within the vicinity of the use of the dangerous instrumentality furnished by a manufacturer which fails to give notice of the danger. Injury to a bystander is often feasible. A restriction of the doctrine to the users and consumers would have to rest on the vestige of the disappearing privity requirement. This requirement has been often applied, and frequently mutilated, in cases where a supplier of chattels was held liable on some theory of warranty.
We now hold that a manufacturer may be held liable under the theory of strict liability in tort, as distinct from breach of implied warranty of merchantability, for injury to a user of the product or a bystander, thereby answering question 1(a) in the affirmative.
We now turn to question 1(b) which reads as follows:
It has been held generally that simple, contributory negligence is not a defense in a strict liability action, see 72 C.J.S. Supp. Products Liability § 45; 63 Am.Jur.2d Products Liability § 150, if such a defense is based upon the failure of the user to discover the defect in the product or the failure *90 of the user to guard against the possibility of its existence.
Strict liability does not make the manufacturer or seller an insurer. Strict liability means negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se, the effect of which is to remove the burden from the user of proving specific acts of negligence.
The gist of the doctrine of contributory negligence is that the person injured should not recover when it appears that the injury would have been avoided if the injured person had exercised reasonable care. In other words, the injured person must act as a reasonable person in exercising for his own safety the caution commensurate with the potential danger. This defense has been recognized where a products liability action is based on negligence. See Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958); Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., supra. Under the "reasonable man" standard the failure of the consumer or user, in the absence of warning, to discover a defect in the product or the failure to guard against the possibility of its existence would not bar recovery under the doctrine of contributory negligence. See 63 Am.Jur. Products Liability § 149.
As stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment at 356:
We recognize that contributory negligence of the user or consumer or bystander in the sense of a failure to discover a defect, or to guard against the possibility of its existence, is not a defense. Contributory negligence of the consumer or user by unreasonable use of a product after discovery of the defect and the danger is a valid defense. Prior to the adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine, a plaintiff's conduct as the sole proximate cause of his injuries would constitute a total defense. See Coleman v. American Universal of Florida, Inc., 264 So. 2d 451 (Fla.App. 1st 1972), quoting from 2 Frumer and Friedman Products Liability § 16.01(3), at 3-20 to 3-31. The defendant manufacturer may assert that the plaintiff was negligent in some specified manner other than failing to discover or guard against a defect, such as assuming the risk, or misusing the product, and that such negligence was a substantial proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries or damages. See Annot., 13 A.L.R.3d 1057, 1100-1101. The fact that plaintiff acts or fails to act as a reasonable prudent person, and such conduct proximately contributes to his injury, constitutes a valid defense. In other words, lack of ordinary due care could constitute a defense to strict tort liability.
We now have comparative negligence, so the defense of contributory negligence is available in determining the apportionment of the negligence by the manufacturer of the alleged defective product and the negligent use made thereof by the consumer. The ordinary rules of causation and the defenses applicable to negligence are available under our adoption of the Restatement rule. If this were not so, this Court would, in effect, abolish the adoption of comparative negligence. See Powers v. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc., 64 Wis.2d 532, 219 N.W.2d 393 (1974).
The last certified question reads as follows:
The adoption of the doctrine of strict liability in tort does not result in the demise of implied warranty. If a user is injured by a defective product, but the circumstances do not create a contractual relationship with a manufacturer, then the vehicle for recovery could be strict liability in tort. If there is a contractual relationship with the manufacturer, the vehicle of implied warranty remains.
Contributory negligence is generally considered to be a doctrine of the law of torts. However, breach of warranty actions retain certain aspects of the law of torts and frequently a given set of facts could support either an action for breach of implied warranty or an action for negligence. As a consequence questions have arisen as to whether a defense of contributory negligence may properly be asserted in an action for breach of warranty. American Law of Products Liability, Second Edition, Hursh and Bailey, Volume 1, § 3:81, pp. 619-21, contains the following:
In Coleman v. American Universal of Florida, Inc., 264 So. 2d 451 (Fla.App. 1st 1972), the sole question under consideration was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the plaintiff's contributory negligence constituted a bar to his recovery in an action for breach of implied warranty. The court pointed out that the authorities were "pretty evenly divided on the question before us." The court then said:
We approve this decision. Unreasonable exposure to a known and appreciated risk should bar recovery in an action based upon implied warranty just as it bars recovery in negligence. However, it is unreasonable to require the noncommercial consumer to make any sort of detailed or expert inspection. If the injured person's conduct is a proximate cause of the injuries, the defendant would have the right to a charge on comparative negligence in an action for breach of implied warranty. If the injured person failed to use that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances then he is guilty of some negligence. If this negligence was a proximate contributing cause of the injuries, the defendant would be entitled to raise the defense of contributory or comparative negligence. In other words, lack of ordinary due care could constitute such a defense.
To summarize, we recognize that in the present day marketing milieu treatment of the manufacturers' liability to ultimate purchasers or consumers in terms of implied warranty is simply using a convenient legal device to accomplish some recourse for an injured person. Traditionally, warranty has had its source in contract. Ordinarily there is no contract in a real sense between a manufacturer and an ultimate consumer of its product. As a result, warranty law in Florida has become filled with inconsistencies and misapplications in the judiciary's attempt to provide justice to the injured consumer, user, employee, bystander, etc., while still maintaining the contract principles of privity.
The obligation of the manufacturer must become what in justice it ought to be  an enterprise liability, and one which should not depend upon the intricacies of the law of sales. The cost of injuries or damages, either to persons or property, resulting from defective products, should be borne by the makers of the products who put them into the channels of trade, rather than by the injured or damaged persons who are ordinarily powerless to protect themselves. We therefore hold that a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. This doctrine of strict liability applies when harm befalls a foreseeable bystander who comes within range of the danger.
Contributory or comparative negligence is a defense in a strict liability action if based upon grounds other than the failure of the user to discover the defect in the product or the failure of the user to guard against the possibility of its existence. The consumer or user is entitled to believe that the product will do the job for which it was built. On the other hand, the consumer, user, or bystander is required to exercise ordinary due care.
The adoption of the doctrine of strict liability in tort does not result in the demise of implied warranty. In an action upon implied warranty the defense of contributory or comparative negligence may be interposed, for the injured person is required to exercise "ordinary due care."
Having answered the questions certified, we return the case to the United States Court of Appeals for a decision as to the evidentiary and procedural issues which remain.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
[1]  The various states that have approved the doctrine of strict liability can be categorized as follows:

States which have specifically adopted § 402 A:
Arizona, O.S. Stapley Co. v. Miller, 103 Ariz. 556, 447 P.2d 248 (1968);
Connecticut, Wachtel v. Rosol, 159 Conn. 496, 271 A.2d 84 (1970);
Hawaii, Stewart v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 52 Haw. 71, 470 P.2d 240 (1970);
Idaho, Shields v. Morton Chem. Co., 95 Idaho 674, 518 P.2d 857 (1974);
Indiana, Perfection Paint & Color Co. v. Konduris, 147 Ind. App. 106, 258 N.E.2d 681 (1970);
Iowa, Hawkeye Sec. Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 1970);
Kentucky, Dealers Transp. Co. v. Battery Distrib. Co., 402 S.W.2d 441 (Ky. 1965);
Mississippi, State Stove Mfg. Co. v. Hodges, 189 So. 2d 113 (Miss. 1966);
Missouri, Giberson v. Ford Motor Co., 504 S.W.2d 8 (Mo. 1974);
Montana, Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, 162 Mont. 506, 513 P.2d 268 (1973);
New Hampshire, Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. 36, 260 A.2d 111 (1969);
New Mexico, Stang v. Hertz Corp., 83 N.M. 730, 497 P.2d 732 (1972);
Oklahoma, Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okl. 1974);
Oregon, Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., 248 Or. 467, 435 P.2d 806 (1967);
Pennsylvania, Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 220 A.2d 853 (1966);
Rhode Island, Ritter v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 109 R.I. 176, 283 A.2d 255 (1971);
Texas, Darryl v. Ford Motor Co., 440 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. 1969);
Washington, Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash. 2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969);
Wisconsin, Dippel v. Sciano, 37 Wis.2d 443, 155 N.W.2d 55 (1967);
States which have adopted the substantial equivalent of § 402A:
Alaska, Bachner v. Pearson, 479 P.2d 319 (Alaska 1970);
California, Greenman v. Yuba Power Prod., Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897 (1962);
Illinois, Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182 (1965);
Louisiana, Weber v. Fid. & Cas. Ins. Co. of New York, 259 La. 599, 250 So. 2d 754 (1971);
Michigan, Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co., 375 Mich. 85, 133 N.W.2d 129 (1965);
Minnesota, Kerr v. Corning Glass Works, 284 Minn. 115, 169 N.W.2d 587 (1969);
Nebraska, Kohler v. Ford Motor Co., 187 Neb. 428, 191 N.W.2d 601 (1971);
Nevada, Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970);
New Jersey, Santor v. A and M Karagheusian, Inc., 44 N.J. 52, 207 A.2d 305 (1965);
New York, Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622 (1973);
Ohio, Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp., 6 Ohio St.2d 227, 218 N.E.2d 185 (1966);
Tennessee, Ford Motor Co. v. Lonon, 217 Tenn. 400, 398 S.W.2d 240 (1966);
States where federal courts have predicted that § 402A would be applied:
Utah, Julander v. Ford Motor Co., 488 F.2d 839 (10th Cir.1973);
Vermont, Wasik v. Borg, 423 F.2d 44 (2nd Cir.1970).