American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Duran

District Court of Appeal of Florida

American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Duran

451 So. 2d 895, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13277

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1984

DocketNo. 84-122

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 451 So. 2d 895 (American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Duran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Duran, 451 So. 2d 895, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13277 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

American Hoist and Derrick Co., Inc. (Amhoist), a nonresident manufacturer and seller, shipped to its exclusive Florida distributor a crane which was sold to a Florida operator. The use of the crane resulted in the death of Jose Duran-Perez. His personal representative and others instituted this action based on breach of warranty, negligence, and strict product liability against Amhoist and two co-defendants. In answers to interrogatories, Amhoist admitted that during the relevant periods it “may have” advertised its products in publications circulated in Florida, supplied sales materials to its exclusive distributor [896]*896and other direct accounts in Florida, and sent agents into the state to perform services for its exclusive distributor. On these facts the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to quash service of process and to dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction over the person. See Richard Bertram & Co. v. American Marine, Ltd., 258 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 48.-181, Fla.Stat. (1983); see also Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druckgusswaremfabrik, 442 So.2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

American Hoist and Derrick Co., Inc. (Amhoist), a nonresident manufacturer and seller, shipped to its exclusive Florida distributor a crane which was sold to a Florida operator. The use of the crane resulted in the death of Jose Duran-Perez. His personal representative and others instituted this action based on breach of warranty, negligence, and strict product liability against Amhoist and two co-defendants. In answers to interrogatories, Amhoist admitted that during the relevant periods it “may have” advertised its products in publications circulated in Florida, supplied sales materials to its exclusive distributor [896]*896and other direct accounts in Florida, and sent agents into the state to perform services for its exclusive distributor. On these facts the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to quash service of process and to dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction over the person. See Richard Bertram & Co. v. American Marine, Ltd., 258 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 48.-181, Fla.Stat. (1983); see also Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druckgusswaremfabrik, 442 So.2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 So. 2d 895, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-hoist-derrick-co-v-duran-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack