Peter J. SALOZZO, Appellant,
v.
WAGNER SPRAY TECH CORPORATION, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
James L. Ferraro and Marjorie N. Salem, Miami, for appellant.
Nicklaus Valle Craig & Wicks and Bill Edwards and Richard M. Davis, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and COPE, JJ.
*394 PER CURIAM.
Upon the conclusion that the record presents jury questions as to whether the defendant-appellee manufacturer adequately warned potential users against the dangers of a foreseeable method of operating its paint spray gun, the judgment entered below on a directed verdict in its favor is reversed. See Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958); Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter, 478 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1986); American Cyanamid Co. v. Roy, 466 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), approved in part, quashed in part on other grounds, 498 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1986); Noel v. Ecker & Co., 445 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Edwards v. California Chemical Co., 245 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 247 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1971); Billiar v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 623 F.2d 240 (2d Cir.1980); Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F.2d 79 (4th Cir.1962); Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 685 P.2d 218 (Colo. App. 1984), aff'd, 723 P.2d 1322 (Colo. 1986); Marshall v. Beno Truck Equip. Co., 481 So. 2d 1022 (La. App. 1985), cert. denied, 482 So. 2d 620 (La. 1986); cf. Prather v. Upjohn Co., 797 F.2d 923 (11th Cir.1986) (verdict properly directed on strict liability theory; negligent warning issue submitted to jury). While we agree that the plaintiff's proposed expert testimony was properly excluded, expert evidence was not required to permit a jury conclusion that the warnings provided were inadequate, improperly located, or both. Streich v. Hilton-Davis, 214 Mont. 44, 692 P.2d 440 (1984); Macri v. Ames McDonough Co., 211 N.J. Super. 636, 512 A.2d 548 (1986).
Reversed and remanded.