Lindsey v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc.
Florida District Court of Appeal
943 So. 2d 963 (2006)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Mark Lindsey (plaintiff) used a tire-changing machine manufactured by Hennessy Industries, Inc. (Hennessy) (defendant) in his work as an automobile mechanic. Although the machine was supposed to be able to remove tires with rims up to 20 inches in diameter, Lindsey and his coworkers had trouble using the machine to remove tires from 19-inch rims. To solve this problem, Lindsey inserted a tire iron along the edge of the tire to help the machine remove the tire. On one occasion, the tire iron slipped and Lindsey almost fell over, injuring his back. Lindsey sued Hennessy, alleging that the machine was negligently designed or manufactured. The trial court granted Hennessy’s motion for summary judgment. Lindsey appealed, arguing that the question of whether a defect in the tire-changing machine was the proximate cause of his injury was a question for the jury. Hennessy argued on appeal that Lindsey’s injury was caused by his misuse of the machine and that Lindsey failed to present evidence that the machine was defective.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lewis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
