Court Opinion

ID: 9561704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:14:26.871989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:16.014624
License: Public Domain

Blackburn, Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur with the majority opinion as such result is required by the present statutory law. I especially concur to point out that the legislature’s 1987 amendment to the Georgia products liability law can create an unfair and unjust result. See Ga. L. 1987, p. 1152. Even though Tri Star marketed the subject pliers under its own name and apparently even represented itself to the public as having “50 years experience nation-wide as tool manufacturers,” Georgia law precludes its liability as a manufacturer. Plaintiffs like Schneider are limited in their remedy to actions against unknown and likely untouchable manufacturers in remote areas of the world. Such was not the case before the subject statute was amended, as the law formerly required those who labeled products as their own to take responsibility as an “ostensible manufacturer.” See, e.g., Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., 141 Ga. App. 175, 179 (4) (233 SE2d 33) (1977). I repeat the call for fairness made by Pope, C. J., in his special concurrence in Alltrade, Inc. v. McDonald, 213 Ga. App. 758, 761 (445 SE2d 856) (1994) and urge the legislature to fashion an appropriate remedy against those who represent themselves to be manufacturers when they are marketing products and it is to their benefit to do so, but who are then permitted under Georgia law to deny the responsi*88bilities which the law imposes upon such manufacturers. Such a law permits the perpetration of a fraud upon the innocent citizens of Georgia.
Decided October 7, 1996
Parkerson, Shelfer & Groff, William S. Shelfer, Jr., David B. Groff, for appellant.
Duncan & Mangiafico, George E. Duncan, Jr., for appellee.