Keller ex rel. Compton v. Eagle Army-Navy Department Stores, Inc.
Opinion
We reverse the trial court judgment which dismissed what was in fact the fourth complaint filed by the plaintiff. While we agree that the complaint was in-artful, far from being a model, and certainly borderline as to legal sufficiency, we feel from our review of the cases and criteria contained therein 1 that the complaint was at least adequate at this stage to state a cause of action in breach of warranty. The action was brought against a retailer by an injured person not in privity, based upon the notion that the injury was caused by a dangerous instrumentality.2
We specifically do not here determine whether or not the exploding patio torch in question was a dangerous instrumentality. We only hold that the trial court decision as to this concern was premature and that [249] such determination, at least in this uncertain instance, should be made only after plaintiff has had an opportunity to adduce evidence as to the construction and dangers of this particular device.
Reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
UPON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
This motion being well founded, we supplement our opinion which was filed on November 19, 1971, by saying that appellants’ complaint stated a cause of action in each of its four counts.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
256 So. 2d 248 (Keller ex rel. Compton v. Eagle Army-Navy Department Stores, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.