Perry v. Luby Chevrolet, Inc.

446 So. 2d 1150, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12317
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 13, 1984
Docket83-2378
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 1150 (Perry v. Luby Chevrolet, Inc.) 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
Perry v. Luby Chevrolet, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1150, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12317 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

446 So.2d 1150 (1984)

Alberta Bass PERRY, Appellant,
v.
LUBY CHEVROLET, INC., Appellee.

No. 83-2378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 1984.

Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner and Lori Barrist, Miami, for appellant.

Corlett, Killian, Hardeman, McIntosh & Levi and Leanne J. Frank, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON.

BASKIN, Judge.

We reverse the Final Summary Judgment entered in favor of the automobile retailer in an action predicated upon breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability. Appellant was allegedly injured when the *1151 steering mechanism of her car locked and the car veered off the road into a bridge embankment. Appellant had purchased the automobile from Luby Chevrolet. Although Luby was responsible for repairs and service, it had not performed any of these services prior to the mishap.

We are aware of no legal impediment to the establishment of appellant's claims under theories of strict liability or breach of warranty should the evidence presented to the trier of fact support such recovery. Uniform Commercial Code, § 672.314, Fla. Stat. (1981); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402 A. (1965). Whether there was a defect in the automobile presents a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966).

We agree, however, that summary judgment on the issue of negligence was proper.

Reversed in part; affirmed in part; remanded with directions.

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

Related

Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps
881 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Florida, 2012)
Porter v. Rosenberg
650 So. 2d 79 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Feldman v. American Motors Sales Corp.
639 So. 2d 82 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Samuel Friedland Family Ent. v. Amoroso
630 So. 2d 1067 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
Lawrence v. Brandell Products, Inc.
619 So. 2d 427 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
North Miami General Hosp. v. Goldberg
520 So. 2d 650 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Mobley v. South Florida Beverage Corp.
500 So. 2d 292 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
RA Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman
470 So. 2d 60 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
446 So. 2d 1150, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-luby-chevrolet-inc-fladistctapp-1984.