on account of procedural deficiencies. 2. Substantive Sufficiency of Count I In the seminal West case, the Supreme Court of Florida adopted strict liability for manufacturers and sellers whose products reach a consumer in an unreasonably dangerous condition and thereafter cause injury. West, 336 So.2d at 86-87. “In order to hold a manufacturer liable on the theory of strict liability in tort, the user must establish the manufacturer’s relationship to the product in question, the defect and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product, and the existence of the proximate causal connection between such condition and the user’s injuries or damages.” Id. at 87; see also Clark, 395 So.2d at 1229; see also Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). In other words, there are three elements to a
holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a product recognizing strict product liability actions holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control