Court Opinion

ID: 9585006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:55:04.542354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:22.366499
License: Public Domain

Birdsong, Judge,
dissenting.
Inasmuch as the relevant evidence seems to point conclusively to the fact that the neighbor used a product manufactured by Formby’s and the use of this product is the only explanation offered by appellant as the cause of his loss, I must respectfully dissent. The undisputed facts show that McCloskey sold a stain base in 55 gallon drums to Formby’s. There is no showing that this stain base had any noxious odors or vapors or that any toxicity tests had been performed or were required to be performed. After the stain base was received by Formby’s, two acidic solvents were added to the base, changing the content and nature of the stain base not only as to liquid and vapor content but also as to toxicity as well, for Formby’s stain was known to have a toxic effect on rats when orally ingested. Moreover, the stain base sold to Formby’s (before modification) was sold under Mc-Closkey’s name and the modified stain base was sold in eight-ounce bottles under Formby’s name as “Antique Walnut Wiping Stain.”
Under Code Ann. § 105-106, strict liability is imposed for injuries suffered “ ‘. . . because the property when sold by the manufacturer [McCloskey] was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.’ ” This court has imposed as a condition precedent to imposition of strict liability against a manufacturer (McCloskey) for an allegedly defective product that “... the product ‘is expected to and does reach the user or consumer [Thebaut] without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold’ [to Formby’s].” Talley v. City Tank Corp., 158 Ga. App. 130, 135 (279 SE2d 264). In this case the product sold by Formby’s under its own name had been chemically altered. Thus, McCloskey’s base stain was not the property purchased by Thebaut nor can it be concluded that what caused the birds’ deaths still remained identifiable and be McCloskey’s product. If the fumes caused the birds’ deaths, the evidence is undisputed that it was Formby’s product that was used. Proximate cause is a necessary element to Thebaut’s complaint and in the absence of a connection between McCloskey’s stain and the injuries suffered, the complaint likewise must fail. Union Carbide Corp. v. Holton, 136 Ga. App. 726, 728 (1) (222 SE2d 105).
Finally, appellant Thebaut relies heavily on McCloskey’s failure to warn of the dangerous and noxious potential for harm in its manufactured product, the base stain. However, no such duty falls *654upon a manufacturer whose product has been substantially modified by an intervening agency, and particularly where the intervening agency holds forth the new product as an item of its own manufacture. It is rather the duty of the intervening manufacturer (Formby’s) to make the new product safe for the purpose of which he (Formby’s) intended it to be used and warn the user (consumer) of any potential danger in the use of its new product. See Talley v. City Tank Corp., supra, p. 138. I would sustain the grant of summary judgment to McCloskey.
I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Sognier join in this dissent.