Florida Court Declines To Find Exculpatory Clauses Preclude Strict Products Liability Claims

• Jurisdiction: Florida,United States
• Law Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
• Author: Rand Brothers and Shui Sum Lau
• Published date: 30 January 2023

In a matter of first impression, a Florida appeals court recently held that a retailer's exculpatory clause does not apply to claims brought under a theory of strict products liability.

In Harrell v. BMS Partners, LLC, the plaintiff purchased a motorcycle from a local retailer and alleged that the motorcycle soon began to "wobble, thrash, and violently turn," causing him to lose control and sustain serious bodily injuries in the ensuing crash.¹ As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff sued the retailer for its alleged negligence in assembling, setting up, servicing, repairing, and/or inspecting the motorcycle.² He also asserted strict products liability claims arising out of alleged manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn by the retailer.³

The defendant retailer moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims in their entirety based on an exculpatory clause present in the parties' sales contract, which provided,

"I . . . RELEASE BMS FOR ANY LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY IN ANY WAY FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH, OR OTHER DAMAGES TO ME INCLUDING PROPERTY DAMAGES, OR MY FAMILY HEIRS, OR ASSIGNS WHICH MAY OCCUR FROM MY OPERATION OR OWNERSHIP OF THE MOTORCYCLE I AM PURCHASING FROM BROWARD MOTORSPORTS WHICH MAY BE DUE OR IN PART TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF BROWARD MOTORSPORTS[.] . . . I AM AWARE THAT THIS IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND A CONTRACT BETWEEN MYSELF AND BROWARD MOTORSPORTS AND SIGN IT OF MY OWN FREE WILL."⁴

The trial court granted the retailer's motion to dismiss.⁵

On appeal, because the clause expressly disclaimed liability for claims "due or in part to have been caused by the negligence or gross negligence of Broward Motorsports," the parties agreed that the claims sounding in negligence had been released.⁶ However, the issue of strict liability was a closer call.

The plaintiff argued that the exculpatory clause, by its plain language, only applied to negligence-based claims, and so the trial court erred in dismissing the strict liability claims as well.⁷ The defendant retailer contended that the broad language disclaiming "any liability or responsibility in any way clearly reflect[ed] the parties' agreement to relieve Defendant of liability for any potential tort claim, including claims for strict products liability."⁸

Whether an exculpatory clause can preclude a plaintiff from asserting strict products liability claims differs from state to state.⁹ Here, the appellate court in Harrell acknowledged that...