When a product catches fire, breaks, or malfunctions, an injured person often faces a hard problem: proving exactly what went wrong inside the product. Sometimes the very failure destroys the evidence needed to explain it. Florida law has long recognized that reality with a special rule that can help plaintiffs in certain manufacturing-defect cases.
But rules like that have limits, and courts sometimes disagree about how far they should reach — especially when a product has been heavily changed after it left the factory, or when key parts are missing. Those disagreements matter to consumers who are injured and to manufacturers who are sued.
This post looks at a procedural order in Ford Motor Company v. Hetsler, a decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. The full court declined to rehear the case together (an “en banc” review), and one judge wrote separately to explain why he thought the court should have taken a closer look at the underlying legal rule.
Key Takeaway
The appeals court declined to rehear this case with all of its judges sitting together. One judge dissented, arguing that the limits of a long-used product-defect inference deserve fuller court-wide review.
The question is more specific:
- When may a jury infer a manufacturing defect just because a product failed?
- Does that inference still apply when the product was substantially altered after leaving the manufacturer?
What happened in this case?
According to the dissent, the case grew out of a fire in a 2016 Ford Mustang that was parked but idling in the early morning hours. The car had been heavily modified with a supercharger, had changed owners across state lines, and was eventually purchased in Florida.
The owner was severely burned while inside the vehicle when it caught fire for reasons that were never pinned down, and some components of the car had been lost. A jury returned a very large verdict against Ford. Ford then asked the appeals court to take another look.
What is the “Cassisi” inference?
The dissent explains that at trial the plaintiff was given the benefit of an inference drawn from a 1981 decision, Cassisi v. Maytag Co. Under that line of cases, a jury in a manufacturing-defect case may infer that a product was defective if it fails while being used the way it normally would be.
The dissent notes two things about that rule: the Florida Supreme Court has never formally approved it, and courts have long debated the legal theory it rests on — whether it is tied to what an ordinary consumer would expect or to a weighing of a product’s risks against its usefulness.
Why the inference is powerful
In cases where a product is damaged or partly destroyed, direct proof of a specific defect can be nearly impossible. An inference lets a jury bridge that gap based on the fact that the product failed during normal use.
What did the court decide?
The full court denied Ford’s motion for rehearing en banc. In plain terms, a majority of the judges declined to have the entire court re-examine the panel’s decision.
The order itself is short: the request was denied, with most judges concurring, one judge dissenting, and one recused. A separate postscript notes that the panel had earlier issued an unexplained affirmance and later replaced it with written opinions.
Why did one judge disagree?
Judge Makar dissented from the denial. He argued that the boundaries of the Cassisi inference should be drawn carefully, pointing to an earlier Fifth District decision, Torres v. Matsushita Electric Corp., where the full court held that a vacuum buyer was not entitled to the inference.
He emphasized several features of this case that, in his view, made it unusual: the vehicle had been substantially altered after leaving Ford, its operation could be viewed as something other than ordinary, and the connection back to the original manufacturing was muddled by modifications and lost evidence. In his view, guidance on the inference’s limits was warranted regardless of who ultimately won.
Why does this matter to consumers and manufacturers?
Product-liability rules affect both sides of these disputes. An inference that helps an injured person prove a defect can be essential when evidence is destroyed, while manufacturers have an interest in clear limits so that changes made by others are not automatically laid at the maker’s door.
This order does not resolve that larger debate. It simply reflects that the appeals court, at least for now, declined to revisit it as a full court — even as one judge urged that the issue is important enough to deserve that attention.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.