History
  • No items yet
midpage
Friedman v. Ford Motor Co.
179 So. 2d 371
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1965
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, on the authority of Rozen v. Chrysler Corporation, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 735.






Concurrence Opinion

TILLMAN PEARSON, Judge

(concurring specially).

While I concur that this appeal is properly affirmed upon the holding in Rozen v. Chrysler Corp., Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 735, I feel that I should note that I have serious doubts concerning the apparent statement in the Rozen case that all implied warranties can be eliminated by a provision in a written warranty that all other warranties are eliminated. See Corneli Seed Co. v. Ferguson, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 162, and Sperry Rand Corp. v. Industrial Supply Corp., 337 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1964) [Applying Florida law]. It is my view that public policy will require that certain warranties of dangerous instrumentalities, such as automobiles, exist, even in the face of a general statement that no warranties are given. See Browne v. Fenestra, Inc., 375 Mich. 566, 134 N.W.2d 730 (1965); Hennington v. Bloomfield Motors, 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 75 A.L.R.2d 1 (1960); and Jarnot v. Ford Motor Co., 191 Pa.Super. 422, 156 A.2d 568 (1959).

Case Details

Case Name: Friedman v. Ford Motor Co.
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Oct 26, 1965
Citation: 179 So. 2d 371
Docket Number: No. 65-91
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.