Court Opinion

ID: 9449608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:16:54.277583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:54.438219
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Although the question is an extremely close one and I am more than ever reluctant to differ because of the experience-based familiarity of Judge WHITE-HURST with Florida law, I think the jury verdict is sustained under Florida law on so-called warranties if not negligence. The extent to which Florida carries the notion of implied fitness is revealed by the recent opinion of Green v. American Tobacco Co., 1963, Fla., 154 So.2d 169, in effect reversing our initial decision, Green v. American Tobacco Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 304 F.2d 70. The press failed to function many times by rolling back when it ought not to. Obviously the jury could find that a press should not do that. The jury could likewise conclude that this was not the result of improper maintenance or repair. A press which unaccountably rolls back without warning is not fit for the job for which it is intended. It was this *647characteristic which caused Plaintiff’s injuries. And for Florida that is enough quite without regard to foreseeability or due care. Certainly the Plaintiff was in the range of persons Florida considers protected by the fitness representation.
I therefore respectfully dissent.