Rimes v. H.F. Mason Equipment Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rimes v. H.F. Mason Equipment Corp.

483 So. 2d 782, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 385, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6504

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1986

DocketNos. 85-686, 85-687

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 782 (Rimes v. H.F. Mason Equipment Corp.) 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

Rimes v. H.F. Mason Equipment Corp., 483 So. 2d 782, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 385, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6504 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgments entered in favor of the appellees, defendants below, because there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the lack of a device either to enable the operator of a crane to see persons behind and below the crane’s cab or to audibly warn persons located in the immediate vicinity of the cab of the imminent rotation of the cab constitutes a defective condition which was a proximate cause of the death of the plaintiff’s decedent. See West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976); Cox v. R.O. Corp., 470 So.2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Martinez v. Clark Equipment Co., 382 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgments entered in favor of the appellees, defendants below, because there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the lack of a device either to enable the operator of a crane to see persons behind and below the crane’s cab or to audibly warn persons located in the immediate vicinity of the cab of the imminent rotation of the cab constitutes a defective condition which was a proximate cause of the death of the plaintiff’s decedent. See West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976); Cox v. R.O. Corp., 470 So.2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Martinez v. Clark Equipment Co., 382 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 So. 2d 782, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 385, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rimes-v-hf-mason-equipment-corp-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack