Case Name: Cheryl ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. DEAK PERERA (MIAMI), INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-03-24
Citations: 396 So. 2d 749
Docket Number: No. 80-226
Parties: Cheryl ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. DEAK PERERA (MIAMI), INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 396
Pages: 749–752

Head Matter:
Cheryl ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. DEAK PERERA (MIAMI), INC., Appellee.
No. 80-226.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 24, 1981.
Rehearing Denied April 28, 1981.
Alldredge & Gray and James H. Gray, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Heller & Kaplan and Daniel Neal Heller and Lisa H. Green and Robert Golden, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
BASKIN, Judge.
Whether a dealer in Jamaican currency who fails to warn a customer that transporting Jamaican currency into Jamaica without authorization constitutes a crime under Jamaican law is answerable for negligence, is the question raised in this appeal. Appellant contends the dealer, Deak Perera (Miami), Inc., owed her a duty to warn of the danger inherent in transporting the currency into Jamaica. The trial judge disagreed and dismissed the complaint. We agree with the trial court and affirm the dismissal of the amended complaint.
According to appellant Robertson, the currency dealer located at Miami International Airport should have known the laws of the country whose currency it sold and should have foreseen and warned her against the risk. Had that been done, she asserts, she would not have suffered the embarrassment of arrest, detention, confiscation of her belongings, trial, and sentence of one day in jail to which she was subjected as a result of transporting Jamaican currency into Jamaica.
Appellant sought to recover damages predicated upon Deak Perera's negligence in failing to warn her of the danger. A cause of action in negligence, however, must be based upon a legal obligation for the benefit of another. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 53 (4th ed. 1971). "Negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do." Pollock, Law of Torts 468 (13th ed. 1920). In the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, actionable negligence does not exist. 23 Fla.Jur., Negligence § 9, 10 (1959).
Appellant contends that appellee's duty stems from the contract of sale. A duty to exercise care may be created by a contract, 23 Fla.Jur., Negligence § 15 (1950), and the violation of that contractual duty may give rise to an action in tort. Here, however, appellee satisfied the contract by selling currency to appellant. No contractual violation occurred. . No other duty to appellant remained to be performed.
Next, we consider appellant's contention that the potential or latent danger of transporting Jamaican currency into Jamaica imposed a duty to warn upon the seller. Under products liability law, a duty to warn exists only with regard to the manufacture or sale of a product which is potentially dangerous. A seller may be held liable for harm caused by a product which might reasonably have been expected to be capable of inflicting damage either by its nature or because it is defective. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 96 (4th ed. 1971). The rule is entrenched in a long line of cases beginning with MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916). In the case under consideration, the money itself was not alleged to be defective or potentially dangerous, and appellant's claim does not fall within the realm of products liability law. Appellant's damages did not result from the use of the money, but from transporting the currency into Jamaica when such conduct was prohibited by law. We therefore reject her contention.
Affirmed.