Lesnik v. Duval Ford, LLC, 185 So. 3d 577

Duval Ford sold a new 2008 Ford F-250 to David Sweat on August 29, 2007 with a 6-inch lift kit installed by a subcontractor.
Sweat modified the suspension with a leaf spring and replaced tires; truck accumulated 30,000+ miles without steering/suspension issues.
Sweat sold the truck on October 23, 2009 to Shaun Lesnik via Burkins Chevrolet, after Burkins performed a routine inspection showing no obvious issues.
Lesnik experienced severe steering shake and later, on December 16, 2009, the steering and suspension failed in a single-vehicle crash; tires at the time exceeded the truck’s specifications by two inches in diameter, change date unknown.
Lesnik alleged theories of vicarious liability, direct negligence, and strict liability for sale of a modified vehicle and lack of warnings; he relied on an expert, Moore, whom the trial court later struck.
The trial court struck Moore’s September 11, 2014 affidavit as irreconcilably inconsistent with his prior deposition testimony; the court granted summary judgment to Duval Ford and Burkins Chevrolet.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether striking Moore's affidavit was an abuse of discretion	Lesnik argues Ellison allows a later affidavit to contradict deposition.	Burkins Chevrolet contends Moore contradicted deposition testimony and must be struck.	No abuse; Ellison permits striking when contradictions are unexplained.
Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment	Lesnik asserts material facts about liability for modified vehicle and warnings survive summary judgment.	Defendants contend lack of defect, duty, or causation defeats claims.	Summary judgment affirmed for Duval Ford and Burkins Chevrolet; no triable issues.
Was Duval Ford obligated to warn or was there a defect in the lift kit or truck at sale?	Plaintiff claimed defect/warning duty due to modifications.	No design defect or inherently dangerous condition; no duty to warn absent such defect.	No duty to warn and no defect proven; vicarious/direct liability unavailable.

Ellison v. Anderson, 74 So.2d 680 (Fla.1954) (strict rule against contradicting prior sworn statements without explanation)
Ondo v. F. Gary Gieseke, P.A., 697 So.2d 921 (Fla.4th DCA 1997) (Ellison-based inconsistencies require explicit contradictions)
Futch v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 988 So.2d 687 (Fla.1st DCA 2008) (reaffirms de novo review of summary judgments and proper use of Ellison)
Croft v. York, 244 So.2d 161 (Fla.1st DCA 1971) (expert opinions may change with new information without automatic disqualification)
Siguenza v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 121 So.3d 1125 (Fla.3d DCA 2013) (ambiguities between deposition and affidavit do not automatically preclude relief)
Jordan v. State Farm Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 1317 (Fla.2d DCA 1987) (deceptively similar contradictions require careful analysis of testimony)
Baker v. Airguide Mfg., LLC, 151 So.3d 38 (Fla.3d DCA 2014) (clear contradictions may justify striking an affidavit)