Court Opinion

ID: 9850287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:54:35.468859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:34.537567
License: Public Domain

Eberhardt, Judge,
concurring specially. As I view these cases the question for decision is whether the complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted and, if so, whether there was error in sustaining a motion to dismiss.
I think the complaints state claims sufficiently to meet the requirements of the Civil Practice Act. Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga. App. 236 (160 SE2d 260).
While I must agree with Judge Pannell that the manufacturer did not specifically intend that the vehicle should be driven off the highway into a concrete culvert, it must be conceded that it did intend that it be' driven in traffic with accompanying hazards, one of which may be that for some reason it may be driven off the road and strike a culvert. For example, a tire may suddenly go down, or some foreign object on the road may adversely affect the steering.
“The nature of the duty which an automobile manufacturer owes to the users of its products is to design the automobile so that it is reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was intended. Evans v. General Motors Corp. [359 F2d 822, cert. den. 385 US 836, 87 SC 83, 17 LE2d 70]: Gossett v. Chrysler Corp., 359 F2d 84 (6 CCA 1966); Kahn v. Chrysler Corp. [221 FSupp. 677, and cases cited] relying on Muncy v. General Motors Corp., 357 SW2d 430 (Tex.Civ.App. 1962). This duty does not extend to require a manufacturer to design his product so that it is accident proof or foolproof. Gossett v. Chrysler Corp., supra; Evans v. General Motors Corp., supra. . . [T]he defendant had no duty to design an automobile that could withstand a high speed collision and maintain its structural integrity. It would require tenuous reasoning to *767broaden the implied warranty of ‘fitness for intended use’ to an implied warranty of ‘fitness to survive a collision.’ ” Willis v. Chrysler Corp., 264 FSupp. 1010. “[N]o principle of warranty or negligence required [General Motors] to provide the very best means of protection. . . Failure to adopt the most modern, or even a better safeguard, did not render the manufacturer liable” where what was used did afford a reasonable prevention of injury. Brown v. General Motors Corp., 355 F2d 814. “ [I]t is not of itself negligence to use a particular design or method in the manufacture or handling of a product or doing a job which is reasonably safe and in customary use in the industry, although other possible designs, whether in use in the industry or not, might be conceived which would be safer. . .” Day v. Barber-Colman Co., 10 Ill. App. 2d 494, 508 (135 NE2d 231). Misuse of a product is beyond the scope of implied warranty. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 350 F2d 479, 485.
“While liability in warranty is said to be strict, this does not mean that goods are warranted to be foolproof, or incapable of producing injury, or incapable of deterioration into an unreasonably dangerous state. By and large, the standard of safety of goods is the same under the warranty theory as under the negligence theory. In both actions the plaintiff must show (1) that the goods were unreasonably dangerous either for the use to which they would ordinarily be put or for some special use which was brought to the attention of the defendant, and (2) that the unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the goods left the defendant’s hands.”1 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, 1584, § 28.22. Another way of stating it is used by Judge Kiley in his dissent to Evans v. General Motors Corp., 359 F2d 822, 826, “General Motors’ duty was to use such care in designing its automobiles that reasonable protection is given purchasers against death and injury from accidents which are expected and foreseeable, yet unavoidable by the purchaser despite careful use.”

 Other considerations and differences in the two approaches are pointed out, however, in Taylor, Liability for Manufacturers, 2 GLR 530, at 536.