Bennett v. National Gypsum Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bennett v. National Gypsum Co.

491 So. 2d 1161, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1346, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8297

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1697

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 491 So. 2d 1161 (Bennett v. National Gypsum Co.) 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

Bennett v. National Gypsum Co., 491 So. 2d 1161, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1346, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8297 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of Mary Bennett's fourth amended complaint which was grounded on the tort theory of product liability. It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred since she sufficiently alleged a “market share” theory of products liability. Alternatively, she contends that she has sufficiently set out a cause of action based on the traditional theory of strict liability. We disagree with appellant’s first contention but agree with her second.

There is no cause of action founded on a “market share” theory of product liability in a case where, as here, appellant identified appellees as the manufacturers of the asbestos products to which her deceased husband was fatally exposed. Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So.2d 533 (Fla.1985). Even though that be so, we reverse because appellant has sufficiently alleged the proper elements of a cause of action based on the traditional theory of strict liability. West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976); Hammonds v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 285 So.2d 7 (Fla.1973); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the complaint and for further proceedings.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of Mary Bennett's fourth amended complaint which was grounded on the tort theory of product liability. It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred since she sufficiently alleged a “market share” theory of products liability. Alternatively, she contends that she has sufficiently set out a cause of action based on the traditional theory of strict liability. We disagree with appellant’s first contention but agree with her second.

There is no cause of action founded on a “market share” theory of product liability in a case where, as here, appellant identified appellees as the manufacturers of the asbestos products to which her deceased husband was fatally exposed. Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So.2d 533 (Fla.1985). Even though that be so, we reverse because appellant has sufficiently alleged the proper elements of a cause of action based on the traditional theory of strict liability. West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976); Hammonds v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 285 So.2d 7 (Fla.1973); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the complaint and for further proceedings.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 So. 2d 1161, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1346, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-national-gypsum-co-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack