Call us Today at (954) 458-8655

According to Florida law, under the consumer-expectation theory, which is applied to assess strict liability claims in products liability actions, a product is defectively designed if a victim is able to demonstrate that a product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner:

While the elements of strict liability and negligence are similar, strict liability focuses on the reasonable expectations of the consumer. See Ferayorni, 711 So. 2d at 1170; Faddish, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1370. “[U]nder the consumer-expectation theory[,] a product is defectively designed if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.” Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 504 (Fla. 2015) (quoting McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So. 2d 148, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). However, in this case Merrill—not appellant—was the consumer, and appellant was not injured as a bystander while the product was being used as intended. Furthermore, given Merrill’s intention to inhale the product for its unintended side-effects, and the product’s explicit warnings against doing so, no inference can be made that she had any ordinary expectation whatsoever of the product performing safely in its customary use. Nonetheless, “[a] manufacturer is not under a duty in strict liability to design a product which is totally incapable of injuring those who foreseeably come in contact with the product.” Husky, 434 So. 2d at 991 (quoting Hunt v. Blasius, 74 Ill.2d 203, 23 Ill.Dec. 574, 384 N.E.2d 368, 372 (1978)).

See: Grieco v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc. – 344 So.3d 11

Related:

_______________

Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to send Alan an email or call him now at (954) 458-8655.

If you found this information helpful, please share this article and bookmark it for your future reference.