Court Opinion

ID: 9613065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:13:52.234431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:24.679963
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
Unlike Chief Judge Pope, I believe Walker v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 209 Ga. App. 517 (434 SE2d 63) (1993) was correctly decided, but I agree with him that it is inappropriate to rely upon that case as authority here. As Chief Judge Pope’s concurring opinion states, these defendants had no common-law duty to warn because the device and its application at all times were under the control of the prescribing *718physician.
Decided December 2, 1994
Reconsideration denied December 19, 1994.
Saia, Richardson & Meinken, Joseph J. Saia, for appellants.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr., Susan A. Dewberry, for appellees.