Court Opinion

ID: 9583866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:42:39.638376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:10.187379
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
Because we are bound by the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Bullington v. Union Tool Corp., 254 Ga. 283 (328 SE2d 726) (1985), I must respectfully dissent. In Bullington, the Supreme Court weighed the same arguments raised by the majority here and held that the continuation exception did not apply “[s]ince the new corporation never produced the product.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 285. The evidence here is uncontroverted that, while Farmex may have sold the hitch pin in question out of inventory acquired from its predecessor, it never produced the product. More importantly, the Supreme Court explicitly declined to expand the continuation exception in the manner proposed by the majority here, even though the new corporation continued a product line taken over from its predecessor. Id. However persuasive the arguments for expansion of that exception may be, it is for the Supreme Court, not this Court, to take that step.
For these reasons, I dissent.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Andrews and Presiding Judge Birdsong join in this dissent.