## Facts

- A road grader manufactured by Caterpillar Tractor Company struck and ran over Gwendolyn West while it was backing on a Miami street under construction; she died from her injuries.
- Leon West, individually and as personal representative of her estate, sued the grader’s operator’s employer (Houdaille Industries) and Caterpillar.
- West settled with Houdaille for $35,000 and proceeded against Caterpillar in a federal diversity action.
- West alleged design defects, including inadequate rear visibility (rear-view obstructions/blind spot), inadequate mirrors, and the absence of an audible warning device for backing.
- The case was tried to a jury on negligent design, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability theories.
- The jury found Caterpillar liable on all theories, awarded $125,000, and found Mrs. West 35% contributorily negligent.
- The trial court offset the $35,000 settlement and entered judgment for $90,000, disregarding the contributory-negligence finding as to strict liability.
- On appeal, the federal appellate court certified questions of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court concerning strict liability and the effect of plaintiff fault.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida recognizes strict liability in tort, independent of implied warranty, against a manufacturer for injuries caused by a defective product, including injuries to bystanders.
2. If strict liability is recognized, what plaintiff conduct constitutes a defense under comparative or contributory negligence principles, and whether “lack of ordinary due care” qualifies.
3. In an implied-warranty products case, what plaintiff conduct constitutes a defense, and whether “lack of ordinary due care” qualifies.

## Decision

- Florida recognized strict liability in tort for defective products under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, distinct from implied warranty.
- The strict-liability cause of action extends to foreseeable bystanders as well as users and consumers.
- Comparative fault principles may apply in strict liability, but only for certain categories of plaintiff conduct (e.g., assumption of risk/knowing encounter with a known danger, and product misuse/abnormal use).
- Mere inadvertence or ordinary carelessness (failure to discover or guard against a defect) is not a strict-liability defense of the type that reduces or bars recovery.
- Defenses in implied-warranty products cases are treated similarly, with emphasis on risk-aware conduct (assumption of risk) and misuse rather than simple lack of due care.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer that places a product in the stream of commerce may be strictly liable in tort for physical harm caused by a product sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, without proof of negligence.
- Strict products liability in Florida protects foreseeable bystanders, not only purchasers or users.
- Comparative fault in strict liability is limited to plaintiff conduct that materially relates to the injury in a culpable way, including:
  - voluntary, knowing exposure to a known defect or danger (assumption of risk); and
  - misuse or abnormal use not intended or reasonably foreseeable.
- A plaintiff’s ordinary failure to use reasonable care to discover or avoid a product defect does not operate as a comparative-fault defense in strict liability.
- In products cases, implied-warranty defenses align with strict-liability defenses, reducing the practical importance of traditional privity-based limitations.

## Conclusion

Florida adopted Restatement § 402A strict products liability for defective products, extended the doctrine to bystanders, and held that comparative-fault concepts apply only for assumption of risk and misuse-type conduct, not for ordinary carelessness in failing to detect or guard against a defect.


West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)