Court Opinion

ID: 9567741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:57:18.038269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:34.316921
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s holdings as to Case Nos. A93A1874 and A93A1875, and concur fully as to all said therein as to Case Nos. A93A1874 and A93A1875. However, in my view there is some evidence that the fire was caused by a defect in the design of the oven. Therefore, I respectfully dissent to the affirmance of summary judgment in favor of defendant Maytag Corporation in Case No. A93A1422.
Plaintiff’s expert opined that the fire began in the control panel of the oven and that only two possible causes could have started a fire there, either a ground fault or failure of a component. He also testified that retention of a fuse removed from the design shortly prior to the manufacture of the oven in question would have prevented a fire caused by a ground fault and that a better placement of that same fuse in the design could have protected the entire circuit from any type of electrical fault at no additional cost. The plaintiff’s expert also stated that: “If there are ways that the appliance can fail, cause a fire, with drawing less than the 20 ampere fuse protection [which was provided by the building’s electrical system in this case], then it would be the responsibility of the appliance manufacturer to build in the protection for that. ...” Although the plaintiff’s expert did not invade the province of the jury by offering an opinion as to the ultimate issue, the facts provided were sufficient, in my view, to permit a jury to conclude that omission of such a fuse was a design flaw which caused Pettis’ death. “It is the established rule in Georgia, that where (a) the path from evidence to conclusion is not shrouded in the mystery of professional skill or knowledge, and (b) the conclusion determines the ultimate issues of fact in a case, the jury must make the journey from evidence to conclusion without the aid of expert testimony.” Sullivan v. Quisc, Inc., 207 Ga. App. 114 (427 SE2d 86). It is within the capacity of the average lay person (juror) to consider the testimony of the experts and determine whether the omission of a fuse was a defect. See also Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Williams, 173 Ga. App. 118, 121 (3), 122 (325 SE2d 460).
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Pope, Judge Cooper and Judge Blackburn join in this dissent.
*551Decided November 23, 1993
Reconsideration denied December 20, 1993
Gambrell & Stolz, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Gary A. Barnes, Seaton D. Purdom, for Bunch.
Alston & Bird, Russell W. Thorpe, Cynthia Counts, for Maytag Corporation.
Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Elizabeth Helm, Hall F. McKinley III, R. Harold McCard, Jr., for Baumann.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, David R. Hughes, Stephen L. Cotter, Dennis A. Brown, for Mathieson Drive Apartments.