Court Opinion

ID: 9560097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:42:53.244751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:09.023760
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur with the majority’s affirmance of the denial of summary judgment to appellee-cross appellant. I also concur in the holding of Division 1 that genuine issues of material fact remain with regard to appellee’s assumption of the risk. I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s reversal of the denial of summary judgment to appellant.
Since we are dealing with appellant-defendant’s motion for summary judgment, all of the evidence must be construed most strongly in favor of appellee and against appellant. Ray v. Webster, 128 Ga. App. 217 (196 SE2d 175) (1973); H. G. Hastings Co. v. Long & Patrick Nursery, 166 Ga. App. 228 (303 SE2d 768) (1983); Freeman v. Pumpco, Inc., 167 Ga. App. 312 (306 SE2d 385) (1983). Appellee produced, in opposition to appellant’s motion, expert testimony that the sailboat, as designed, was defective. “The expert. . . testified that, in his opinion the [product] was [defective] .... In light of this testimony we find [an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff] meritless. ‘(T)he testimony presented a jury question as to whether [the plaintiff’s] injuries were caused by a . . . defect in the [product.] [Cits.]’ [Cit.]” Firestone Tire &c. Co. v. Pinyan, 155 Ga. App. 343, 347 (270 SE2d 883) (1980). See also Inta-Roto, Inc. v. Guest, 160 Ga. App. 75 (286 SE2d 61) (1981).
The majority would apparently discount this testimony by appellee’s expert on the basis of “[t]he obvious nature of the defect in this case . . . .” In support of this “obvious defect” analysis, the majority holds that the instant case is “not materially distinguishable” from the following cases: Hunt v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 147 Ga. App. 44 (248 SE2d 15) (1978); Poppell v. Waters, 126 Ga. App. 385 (190 SE2d 815) (1972); Stodghill v. Fiat-Allis Constr. Machinery, 163 *850Ga. App. 811 (295 SE2d 183) (1982); Greenway v. Peabody Intl. Corp., 163 Ga. App. 698 (294 SE2d 541) (1982). All these cases relied upon by the majority deal with a product alleged to be defective because of the absence of a tangible piece of safety equipment. In each of the cited cases, the absence of the piece of equipment was readily apparent to the consumer. The asserted defect in the instant case is, in my opinion, “materially distinguishable” from the observable absence of a piece of equipment which would simply render the product safer. Here, the assertions are that the entire sailboat essentially became electrified when contact was made between the mast and electric wires. The potential electrification of essentially the entire product when a portion of it makes contact with an electric wire is, in my opinion, more nearly a “latent” defect in the existing design of the product itself and is not analogous to an “obvious” absence of tangible devices such as crash bars, headlights, a protective metal cage, or a safety lid which would merely render the product safer in certain events to be anticipated. I simply do not believe that it can be said on the record before us that, as a matter of law, the asserted defect in the instant case is not a “latent unobservable [one, presenting a danger] which [was] not obvious.” (Emphasis supplied.) Poppell v. Waters, supra at 388.
Indeed, the latentness of the potential of its product for electrification was apparently recognized by appellant. It appears that the mast of the sailboat contained a warning of this potential danger. “There is no duty on the manufacturer or seller to warn of obvious common dangers connected with the use of a product. [Cit.]” Vance v. Miller-Taylor Shoe Co., 147 Ga. App. 812, 813 (251 SE2d 52) (1978). Thus, appellant itself apparently deemed the potential for electrification of its sailboats to be a latent rather than an obvious common danger and accordingly chose to assume the duty to warn consumers against it. However, the existence of this warning against electrification does not demand that summary judgment be granted to appellant. Again, the evidence must be construed most strongly in favor of appellee and, on the record, I find nothing which would take the instant case outside the general rule that it is “a jury question whether or not the manufacturer was negligent in failing to place a warning in such position, color and size print or to use symbols which would call the user’s attention to the warning or cause the user to be more likely to read the label and warning than not.” Eldridge, Prods. Liability in Ga., § 2-24.
For the reasons discussed, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the denial of summary judgment to appellant.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge McMurray and Judge *851Benham join in this opinion.