Citations
- 390 So. 2d 1229
Full opinion text
PER CURIAM.
The trial court properly refused appellant’s requested strict liability instruction. See Skaggs v. Clairol, Inc., 6 Cal.App.3d 1, 85 Cal.Rptr. 584 (Ct.App.1970). In so ruling, we reject appellant’s claim that appel-lee’s sale of the pool and slide as a unit constituted sale of a “product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user... . ”
The remarks made by counsel and the bench, if error, were harmless.
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, Judge
(specially concurring).
I would not reach the question of the applicability vel non of the strict liability doctrine, because the fact that the jury was charged on both negligence and breach of warranty rendered the failure to give the plaintiffs requested strict liability instruction no more than harmless error. Sansing v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 354 So.2d 895 (Fla.4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1978). I otherwise agree to affirmance.