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.

(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 *1230charged 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.