Source: https://www.newsomelaw.com/blog/author/will-ourand/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:27:43+00:00

Document:
Florida consumers won a major victory when the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Second Restatement’s doctrine of strict products liability in 1976. This victory was in peril over the last several years, however, as the Third District Court of Appeal unilaterally adopted the Third Restatement’s radically different version of “strict” products liability—a version designed for the specific purpose of shifting the costs of injuries away from manufacturers and back onto consumers.
The Florida Supreme Court set the record straight in its October 29, 2015 decision in Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., definitively ruling that the Second Restatement remains the law in Florida. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of strict products liability in Florida, highlight the key differences between the Second and Third Restatements, and analyze the significant impact Aubin will have for consumers and practitioners.
In the nearly four decades that have transpired since the West decision was issued, the Florida Supreme Court has never receded from its adoption of the Second Restatement’s doctrine of strict products liability. Instead, the Court has consistently expanded the doctrine, extending the reach of strict products liability to different types of businesses, and rejecting arguments and defenses which would have conflicted with the policy goals described in West.
The Florida Supreme Court never adopted the Third Restatement. As such, West and the Second Restatement have been the law of this state for approximately four decades. Unsurprisingly, then, Florida’s Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal specifically rejected attempts to apply the Third Restatement’s risk-utility test instead of the Second Restatement’s consumer expectations test. However, the Third District Court of Appeal relied upon the Third Restatement in overturning a verdict against a manufacturer in its 2005 decision in Kohler Co. v. Marcotte. Notably, the Kohler court offered no explanation for its reliance upon the Third Restatement.
I hope that we will have the opportunity in the near future to clarify the law regarding the proper definition of design defect and whether the definition varies depending on the type of product involved. I would urge the appellate courts to bring this issue to our attention by way of a certified question of great public importance in the appropriate case.
The Florida Supreme Court did not have to wait long to clarify the law on design defect. Later that same year, the Third District overturned a $6.6 million verdict in favor of William Aubin, a laborer who developed mesothelioma several decades after being exposed to Union Carbide’s asbestos products. Citing to its decisions in Kohler and Agrofollajes, the Third District held that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury in accordance with the consumer expectations test.
The important aspect of strict products liability that led to our adoption in West remains true today: the burden of compensating victims of unreasonably dangerous products is placed on the manufacturers, who are most able to protect against the risk of harm, and not on the consumer injured by the product. Increasing the burden for injured consumers to prove their strict liability claims for unreasonably dangerous products that were placed into the stream of commerce is contrary to the policy reason behind the adoption of strict liability in West.
Aubin will have an immediate practical impact in active cases. Before October 29, 2015, plaintiffs litigating products liability claims in cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Third District Court of Appeal were forced to prove their cases under a significantly heightened burden of proof when compared to plaintiffs everywhere else in the state. Aubin levels the playing field by ensuring that all products liability plaintiffs share the same burden of proof.
Aubin references the revised instructions, noting that they retain the consumer expectations test and risk-utility test as “alternative” definitions for defect. The Court goes on to state that it “does not direct, at this point, whether the standard jury instructions should be modified in light of this opinion.” However, the Court immediately clarifies that: “The parties may, in proving or defending against such claims, present evidence that a reasonable alternative design existed and argue whether the benefit of the product’s design outweighed any risks of injury or death caused by the design.” This critical clarification is consistent with the remainder of the Aubin opinion, which makes it clear that: (1) the consumer expectations test is the proper standard for determining whether a product is defective; and (2) evidence of alternative designs and the risks and benefits of a product may be presented in support or in defense of a claim governed by the consumer expectations test.
The argument that some products are “too complex” for the consumer expectations test is now dead in the water in Florida. Aubin overruled the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Agrofollajes, in which the defendant made this exact same argument. Additionally, Aubin rejected the Third Restatement in large part because it “blurs the distinction between strict products liability claims and negligence claims” by “departing from the consumer expectations test . . . instead focusing on the foreseeability of the risk of harm, including a cost-benefit analysis.” In doing so, Aubin determined that the consumer expectations test is the “linchpin of the Second Restatement,” explaining that the test “intrinsically recognizes a manufacturer’s central role in crafting the image of a product and establishing the consumers’ expectations for that product—a portrayal which in turn motivates consumers to purchase that particular product.” As a result, Aubin has firmly and correctly equated the doctrine of strict products liability with the consumer expectations test, shutting the door on any argument that the standard should not be applied in a strict products liability case.
Ultimately, Aubin reflects a proper degree of trust and respect for Florida’s juries to come to the right determinations and to carry out the public policy goals described in West. Both plaintiffs and defendants will be able to present evidence concerning alternative designs or a product’s risks and benefits, to the extent such evidence is probative and admissible. The presentation of such evidence will not, however, change the question posed to the jury. Instead, juries deciding products liability cases throughout the state will now be focused on the correct question—whether the product was sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition which was not contemplated by the consumer.
By re-affirming the applicability of the consumer expectations test and the Second Restatement, the Florida Supreme Court wisely ensured a consistent and fair application of products liability law throughout the state. Before October 29, 2015, products liability plaintiffs in cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Third District Court of Appeal were forced to litigate under a far more onerous burden than those located elsewhere in the state. Likewise, litigants throughout the state were previously faced with the prospect that defendants may convince the trial judge that the product at issue in their case was simply “too complex” for the application of the consumer expectations test. Aubin sets the record straight: the consumer expectations test governs products liability cases in the state of Florida. This outcome levels the playing field, and ultimately reflects a proper degree of trust and respect for Florida’s juries to make the right decision and to effectuate the public policy goals adopted by the Florida Supreme Court four decades ago in West.
 West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 80, 92 (Fla. 1976).
 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, cmt. c (1965).
 Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., SC12-2075, 2015 WL 6513924, at *1 (Fla. 2015).
 Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., SC12-2075, 2015 WL 6513924, at *10 (Fla. 2015).
 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 2 (b) cmt. a (1998).
 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 2 (b) (1998).
 Ellen Wertheimer, The Smoke Gets in Their Eyes: Product Category Liability and Alternative Feasible Designs in the Third Restatement, 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 1429, 1430 (1994). Although this article was written while the Third Restatement was still a “tentative draft,” the definition of design defect in that draft was substantively the same as the definition in the final version. Compare Id. at 1430 n. 2 with Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 2 (b) (1998).
 See, e.g., Ellen Wertheimer, The Biter Bit: Unknowable Dangers, The Third Restatement, and the Reinstatement of Liability Without Fault, 70 Brooklyn L. Rev. 889, 927 (2005); Frank J. Vandall, Constructing a Roof before the Foundation is Prepared: The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Section 2(b) Design Defect, 30 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 261 (1997).
 Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So. 2d 103, 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) disapproved of on other grounds by Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., SC12-2075, 2015 WL 6513924 (Fla. 2015).
 Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So. 3d 886, 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) decision quashed, SC12-2075, 2015 WL 6513924 (Fla. 2015).
 Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., SC12-2075, 2015 WL 6513924, at *17 (Fla. 2015).
 In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases–Report No. 13-01 (Products Liab.), 160 So. 3d 869, 874 (Fla. 2015).
 Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., SC12-2075, 2015 WL 6513924, at *19 (Fla. 2015).
 Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976, 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (emphasis added).
Rich Newsome is a civil justice attorney who represents people and families in complex civil litigation. He is the senior partner of the Newsome Melton law firm in Orlando, a former federal prosecutor in the Northern and Middle Districts of Florida, Past-President of the Florida Justice Association, and a member of the Summit Council.
Rich currently serves as a Commissioner on Florida's Constitution Revision Commission.
For more information visit this page on the firm's website, or follow him on Twitter @RichNewsome.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 402
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.