Defective Products

Is the Machine That Hurt You Too Old to Sue Over? Florida’s 12-Year Product Repose

Published on: October 11, 2026 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida Statute § 95.031(2)(b) sets an outer limit on product liability lawsuits that is separate from the ordinary filing deadline. For most products, no claim may be brought if the harm was caused by use of the product more than 12 years after it was first delivered to an end user. For a worker hurt on older equipment, the manufacturer may be the only party outside the workers’ compensation system who can be sued, and this rule can bar that claim.

Under the Florida product liability statute of repose, the 12-year clock runs from delivery to the first end user, not from the day a later owner bought the machine used. An end user here means a first purchaser or lessee that was not in the business of selling or leasing the product or building it into another product. The statute presumes that every product outside its listed exceptions has a useful life of 10 years or less, so ordinary workplace machinery falls under the 12-year limit unless the manufacturer warranted a longer life.

Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada has represented thousands of injured workers across Miami-Dade and South Florida since 1976, and our defective product attorneys check a machine’s delivery history before anything else.

Florida Jury Finds Tesla Liable in First Autopilot Fatality Case

Published on: September 10, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A federal jury in Miami recently held Tesla responsible for a portion of a fatal 2019 crash involving its Autopilot driver-assist system. The driver crossed a T-intersection at approximately 60 mph and struck a parked SUV, killing a pedestrian and seriously injuring her companion. Though the driver admitted negligence, the court found that Tesla’s Autopilot design and failure to warn contributed significantly to the outcome. The jury awarded more than $240 million in damages, including $200 million in punitive damages and over $43 million in compensatory damages. Tesla plans to challenge the verdict on appeal.

This case marks the first time a U.S. jury has held Tesla accountable in a deadly crash where its automated system played a role. The decision raises weighty questions for vehicle manufacturers about design responsibility and user warnings in driver-assistance technologies.

Why This Verdict Matters to Anyone Injured by Technology

Tesla’s liability in this case shows that corporations may be held accountable for technology failures, not just driver error. If you were hurt in a crash involving semi-autonomous or driver-assist systems, you may be entitled to compensation. Courts may weigh whether manufacturers provided adequate safeguards, warnings, and constrained system use to appropriate road types.

Your claim may involve product liability, wrongful death, or negligence. Gathering evidence about device limitations, internal company communications, driver alerts, and regulatory warnings becomes crucial. Expert analysis of the system’s decision-making and failure points can support arguments that the company acted with reckless disregard for user safety.

What Types of Evidence May Strengthen a Claim Involving Driver-Assist Features

When a crash involves advanced systems like adaptive cruise control or lane-keeping assistance, the investigation must go beyond traditional accident reports. Police findings remain useful, but deeper insight comes from accessing diagnostic logs, Autopilot metadata, and sensor activity at the time of the incident. For example, internal data may show whether the system detected the hazard and failed to act, or whether it disengaged properly. In some recent cases, forensic engineers retrieved video evidence that contradicted earlier statements by the vehicle manufacturer, revealing system awareness of risk before impact occurred.

Florida Product Liability and Punitive Damages in Tesla Autopilot Case

Published on: March 31, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Product manufacturers have a legal duty to design and market safe vehicles. When a company promotes a product as advanced or self-sufficient, it raises questions about responsibility when a failure leads to a fatal crash. In Florida, punitive damages are reserved for cases where a manufacturer’s conduct is so reckless that it rises to the level of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. A recent appellate decision reversed a trial court ruling that initially allowed a punitive damages claim against Tesla following a fatal Autopilot-related crash. The ruling highlights the high legal threshold required for punitive damages in product liability cases.

Tesla Autopilot and the Fatal Florida Crash

A driver operating a 2018 Tesla Model 3 engaged the Enhanced Autopilot system while traveling 69 miles per hour on US 441. Moments later, the vehicle collided with a semi-trailer truck that had turned into its path. The impact sheared off the top of the Tesla, resulting in an instant fatality. Crash investigators determined that the vehicle’s Autopilot system remained engaged leading up to the collision, with no braking, acceleration, or steering input detected for at least eight seconds before impact.

Appellate Court Decides Not to Invoke Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

Published on: February 28, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, a plaintiff appealed his claims after he was denied damages in a suit relating to his sustained injuries from a heavy object being dropped onto his foot. The plaintiff attempted to hold Sunbelt, the loader’s owner, directly liable for his injuries. The complaint alleged that Sunbelt should be held liable for its negligent failure to require that the operators of its loaders be properly trained and should be vicariously liable for the defendant’s alleged negligent operation of the loader under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The trial court sided against the plaintiff, which led the plaintiff to appeal.

In this case, the defendant is a licensed contractor who was hired for a clean-up job on private property. The plaintiff accompanied the defendant to the clean-up site and assisted the defendant with cleaning the debris. There were ramps placed inside a bucket attachment that the defendant brought to the cleanup site. After all of the debris was collected, the defendant directed the plaintiff to retrieve the ramps so that the defendant could drive the loader back onto the trailer. The defendant picked up the bucket attachment using the loader’s grapple and drove the loaders toward the trailer. The loader came to a complete stop, and the plaintiff approached the loader on foot and reached into the bucket attachment to retrieve the ramps from within the bucket. While doing so, the loader lurched forward unexpectedly, slipped from his grip, fell on his foot, and amputated two of his toes.

Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability on the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes harm to another. Under this doctrine, an owner who entrusts another to operate the motor vehicle has an obligation to ensure that the vehicle is operated safely. There is an exception to the doctrine, where the person entrusted with the vehicle injures another while both persons are using the vehicle. If this exception applies, the vehicle’s owner cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle. The exception applies when the individuals are “jointly operating and controlling the movement of the vehicle with common purpose and community interest of enterprise, with equal right to control and direct the conduct of each other.”

Florida Appeals Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Argument in Recent Product Liability Case

Published on: November 16, 2022 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a product liability case between a plaintiff that purchased a motorcycle, and the defendant, a motorsports dealer. The plaintiff was injured riding the motorcycle shortly after purchasing it when the motorcycle spun out of control. He brought suit against the defendant for negligence during the assembly and servicing process as well as in a product liability capacity. Following the hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s entire lawsuit based on an exculpatory clause contained within the sales contract that he signed when purchasing the motorcycle.

In 2018, the plaintiff purchased a Suzuki brand motorcycle from the defendant, signing a sales contract containing exculpatory language releasing the defendant dealer from liability. Shortly after buying the motorcycle, the plaintiff was involved in a serious accident and sustained serious bodily injuries. According to the plaintiff, as he was riding it, the front end of the motorcycle began to wobble and thrash, causing him to lose control and crash into another motor vehicle. Following the accident, he sued the defendant, claiming the dealer was negligent in assembling, setting up, servicing, repairing, and or inspecting the motorcycle prior to the sale. Additionally, the plaintiff sued the defendant in its capacity as a seller in the stream of commerce for strict product liability and negligent product liability arising out of manufacturing defects, design defects, and the failure to warn of those defects. At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the defendant’s complaint based on the exculpatory clause he signed during the purchase. The plaintiff filed a response opposing the dismissal. The trial court subsequently granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s entire suit with prejudice based on the exculpatory clause.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues the trial court erred by dismissing the strict product liability counts because the exculpatory clause, due to its plain language, only applied to negligence-based claims. In the appellate court opinion, the appeals court found that much like the public policy driving Florida’s regulation behind licensing of building contractors and building construction standards, the public policy behind adopting the theory of strict liability is rooted in the concept of protecting the safety of consumers. As a result, the exculpatory clause, in this case, purporting to absolve a retailer of liability from strict liability in tort for injuries caused by defects in products it places on the market likewise violates public policy. As a result, the appellate court reversed the portion of the order dismissing the three strict product liability counts.

The Limits of Strict Liability in Florida Defective Product Cases

Published on: June 26, 2022 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Companies or individuals that manufacture, market, or distribute consumer products in Florida have a duty to ensure that the products are safe for public use. If a person is injured or killed while using a dangerous product, the companies who manufactured or sold the product may be liable for damages stemming from the incident, however, many exceptions apply to this theory of liability. The Florida Court of Appeal recently denied a plaintiff’s claim against the manufacturer of a computer duster product that was misused and resulted in a car accident that injured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a man who was injured when a driver lost control of her vehicle and crashed into cars parked in his driveway, pinning him under a vehicle and resulting in serious injury. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman driving had recently purchased and inhaled a can of computer duster manufactured by the defendant corporation and sold by Walmart (also a defendant in the case). The woman admitted to using the computer duster to “get high,” and was charged with a felony DUI offense after the crash.

The accident victim sued the driver for negligence based on the injuries he suffered in the crash, and also sued both Walmart and the product manufacturer for designing, marketing, and selling a dangerous product. Using a strict liability theory of negligence, the plaintiff claimed that the manufacturer and seller of the computer duster could be held accountable for reasonably foreseeable conduct that resulted from selling the product, namely that it could be abused as an intoxicant. In response to the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants disputed their liability for the crash, arguing that strict liability should only apply if a person is using the product as intended by the manufacturer.

Recent Lithium-ion Battery Fire Could Affect Florida Residents

Published on: January 18, 2022 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

With mild, warm weather year-round, Florida residents are no stranger to commuting by electric bike or scooter to enjoy the sunshine without compromising mobility and efficiency. Many of these electric bikes or scooters, however, are operated by complex technology and lithium-ion batteries, which can come with risks of the bike or its parts being defective and potentially dangerous. When a piece of machinery like an electric scooter or bike causes injury because it has defective components by design or manufacturing error, those who are responsible must be held accountable for any resulting damage or injury.

According to a recent news report, a lithium-ion battery from an electric bike or scooter self-combusted in an apartment building, which caused a four-alarm fire. Local authorities responded to the fire in the middle of the night, where it was only extinguished three hours later with one firefighter sustaining minor injuries in the process. After an initial investigation, fire marshals determined that the fire was caused by a battery that burst into flames in a restaurant on the ground floor of the building. The fire then spread vertically through the building, reaching as far up as to damage apartments located on the top floor. The fire remains under investigation.

Although it is unclear what the make and model of the electric bike or scooter was, there has been a steady increase in fires caused by electric bikes recently. In New York, more than 100 fires were caused by these devices, which resulted in 79 injuries and four deaths in 2021 alone.

Understanding Florida Product Liability Claims

Published on: October 11, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When we buy a product, whether it’s food, an appliance, or a car, we expect and trust that the product will be safe for our use. Sometimes, however, these products can cause property damage or injury, which may mean that you may be eligible to receive compensation. From prescription drugs to negligently manufactured appliances, product liability lawsuits are always available for consumers so that the public can hold manufacturers accountable.

According to a recent news report, a major car accident involving a Tesla is prompting a federal investigation into the vehicle’s new technology and safety for consumers. After the accident killed two people, U.S. safety investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board sent three representatives to specifically look for photos or videos of the crash or the fire that broke out after the initial accident. Because Tesla vehicles are electric do not use gasoline, it is unclear what specifically caused the crash or the fire. It is also unclear whether the vehicle’s automated driving system was activated at the time of the collision, which has been the subject of federal interest in recent years. The report investigators plan to generate will create recommendations to other federal agencies about future safety regulations.

In Florida, there are frequent incidents that give rise to similar product liability claims. These claims, however, are subject to specific laws and requirements that govern product liability lawsuits. Because these cases can often be complex, it is crucial that potential plaintiffs understand the details surrounding filing a product liability lawsuit and what a claim will entail.

An Airborne Vehicle Kills Two in Florida Accident

Published on: September 16, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Despite innovations in technology to make life easier, accidents often still occur. When these accidents cause injury or death, the responsible party will often blame the technology for the incident. However, in many cases, the user of the technology has still made errors leading to the accident. Because of this, they are still liable, and the injured person can bring a negligence lawsuit. But when the accident was not the fault of another person but actually a defective product, Florida law allows the injured party to bring a lawsuit in this instance too. Since it is difficult to discern whether a person should bring a negligence or a defective product lawsuit, listed below are the elements of both negligence and products liability lawsuits.

In Florida, an airborne Tesla plowed through a stop sign and into a home early last week. According to one news report, the car was fully airborne when it crashed through the house, leaving a massive hole in the middle of the property. The driver of the car sped through a stop sign and hit a curb—this sent the car into the air and into the house. The accident caused the death of a 69-year-old woman in the house, a passenger in the car, and left three people seriously injured. While the vehicle has an Autopilot function, it was not deployed at the time of the accident.

Negligence Lawsuits

Florida Strict Products Liability Cases in Light of Recent Amazon Lawsuit

Published on: May 24, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An appeals court recently issued an opinion in a case that may have drastic consequences on Florida product liability lawsuits. The decision pertained to a case involving a plaintiff who filed a lawsuit against Amazon for injuries she suffered from a hoverboard she purchased on the website from a third-party seller. The court was tasked with determining whether Amazon could be held strictly liable for defective products on its site.

The massive online retailer argued that it was not liable for the victim’s injuries because Amazon merely operates as a service provider and not as the seller or supplier of the product. In support of its argument, Amazon argued that it did not possess any proactive authority over the item and could merely address safety issues after they had been reported.

Despite Amazon’s contentions, the court upheld previous decisions finding Amazon strictly liable for the defective product. The court reasoned that Amazon played a “pivotal” role in bringing the product to the consumer. Further, the court stated that Amazon would need to bear the consequences of its business model of placing itself in the vertical chain of distribution of the defective hoverboard.