Court Opinion

ID: 9847527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:01:30.822671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.394894
License: Public Domain

*443Carley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgments that are reached by Judge Sognier. However, I am in fundamental disagreement with the basis upon which the ruling in Case Number 71306 rests. Accordingly, I specially concur in order to articulate the basis of my disagreement with that rationale.
In Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 Ga. 657 (238 SE2d 361) (1977), our Supreme Court held that a wrongful death claim could not be based upon strict liability. Admittedly, the legislation enacted subsequent to the Ford decision presents a somewhat confusing scenario. Three separate statutes were successively enacted during the 1978 legislative session and eventually signed by the Governor, each purporting to amend our strict liability statute and to repeal conflicting laws. See Ga. L. 1978, p. 2202; Ga. L. 1978, p. 2218; Ga. L. 1978, p. 2267. However, our current wrongful death law is clear: “ ‘Homicide’ includes all cases in which the death of a human being results from a crime, from criminal or other negligence, or from property which has been defectively manufactured, whether or not as the result of negligence.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 51-4-1 (2). The opinion authored by Judge Sognier construes this language as evincing a distinction drawn by the legislature as between a death that is caused by a defect in the manufactured good itself and a death that is caused by a defect in the warnings on or in the packaging of a manufactured good. This construction places too much emphasis on “manufacture” and focuses too little on “defective.” The concept of “manufactured property” is one which is common to both our strict liability and our wrongful death statutes. In my opinion, the concept of “defective” is likewise common to both statutes.
There is no reason to believe that, when OCGA § 51-4-1 (2) was enacted as an amendment to our wrongful death statute, the phrase “property which has been defectively manufactured, whether or not as the result of negligence” was employed by the legislature so as to draw any distinction whatsoever between the source of fatal “defects” in “defectively manufactured” property. To the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the legislative intent was to insure that a wrongful death claim could be pursued under exactly the same set of facts as could any strict liability claim. Unlike Judge Sognier, I construe the 1978 legislative events as a direct reaction by the General Assembly to the Ford decision and as evincing an undeniable intent to authorize a wrongful death claim that is fully co-extensive with our strict liability statute. See generally Eldridge, Ga. Wrongful Death, § 12-3 (1985 Supp.).
It is true that OCGA § 51-4-1 (2) does not track the literal statutory language of the strict liability code section. The language employed in our wrongful death statute does, however, follow exactly the *444Supreme Court’s interpretation of our strict liability statute. In the seminal products liability case in this State, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret the extent of a manufacturer’s liability for “personal property” which, when sold, is “not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended,” the exact language which now appears in our existing strict liability statute. See OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) (1). Our Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding its roots in the law of warranty, this language was the equivalent of imposing strict liability for a “product [that] when sold by the manufacturer was defective. . . . ‘Where . . . [the manufacturer] has reason to anticipate that danger may result from a particular use ... he may be required to give adequate warning of the danger . . . and a product sold without such warning is in a defective condition.’ [Cit.]. . . . ‘No reason is apparent for distinguishing between the product itself and the container in which it is supplied; and the two are purchased by the user or consumer as an integrated whole.’ [Cit.]” Center Chem. Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 869-870 (218 SE2d 580) (1975). Thus, the Supreme Court specifically held that OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) (1) creates a cause of action in tort for injuries resulting from defectively manufactured products, the scope of which “defective manufacture” can encompass either a defect in the product itself, its warning labels, or its packaging. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of our strict liability law in Parzini became as much a part of that statute as its literal language. See generally Jones v. Swett, 244 Ga. 715, 717 (261 SE2d 610) (1979).
The legislature’s subsequent employment in the amendment of our wrongful death statute of such language as is totally consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the scope of strict liability evinces a legislative approval thereof, and mandates that a consistent construction be given to OCGA § 51-4-1 (2). “It is presumed that the legislature knows and enacts statutes with reference to the existing law, including the decisions of the courts, and when there is nothing in the enactment to indicate that the words used were to have a new and different meaning they should be construed as having the same meaning that was attached to them before the enactment. [Cits.]” Buckhead Doctors’ Bldg. v. Oxford Fin. Co., 115 Ga. App. 52, 55 (153 SE2d 650) (1967). That OCGA § 51-4-1 (2) does not track the exact wording of OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) (1) is not important. That it does track the Supreme Court’s interpretation of OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) (1) is dispositive. I see no distinction between “property which has been defectively manufactured, whether or not as the result of negligence” and the Supreme Court’s holding in Parzini as to a manufacturer’s strict liability for defective products.
There is no basis in law or logic for the acknowledged “anomolous situation” that will result from a contrary construction of our *445wrongful death statute. The legislature has already spoken. To construe “defectively manufactured” property as only that which is intrinsically defective in design, parts or assembly rather than that which is defective in its warnings or packaging is a judicial usurpation of the legislative function. See generally Jones v. Swett, supra at 717. Warnings and packaging are as much a component of the manufacturing process as are design, parts and assembly. Thus, contrary to Judge Sognier’s opinion, I believe that there is a cause of action in this State for wrongful death based upon strict liability, which cause of action is coextensive with OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) (1).
Decided March 11, 1986
Rehearing denied March 27, 1986
Alexander P. LeVorse, Kimberly A. Richardson, John R. Grimes, for appellant (case no. 71306).
Michael J. Gorby, Richard P. Decker, for appellees.
Turning to the merits of the instant case, Mrs. Stiltjes does not contend that Dettelbach’s product is any more “defective” than any other insecticide containing pyrethrins. Her sole contention appears to be that pyrethrins are or may be dangerous to those who suffer from respiratory illness. The undisputed evidence of record shows, however, that, as the result of previous scientific testing, this is already a commonly known and recognized possible dangerous side effect associated with pyrethrins. “Many products can not be made completely safe for use and some can not be made safe at all. However, such products may be useful and desirable.” Center Chem. Co. v. Parzini, supra at 870. The uncontroverted evidence of record also shows that Dettelbach sold its insecticide, not to the Stiltjeses, but to Ridco, a professionally licensed pest control operator. “[Sjince the product was sold to a commercial operator which may reasonably have been expected to be familiar with the dangers resulting from [its use], we do not believe that the manufacturer’s failure to warn of such dangers may be considered the proximate cause of the injury.” Omark Indus. v. Alewine, 171 Ga. App. 207, 209 (319 SE2d 24) (1984). Since the evidence shows that the insecticide was sold to a professional and contained a warning which meets federal labeling requirements, Mrs. Stiltjes’ cause of action is not in strict liability against the manufacturer of a product which merely contained pyrethrins but against the pest control professional that may have negligently caused her husband to come into contact with that product. Thus, I would affirm the trial court in Case Number 71306 on the merits.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Birdsong joins in this special concurrence.
*446Richard P. Decker, Stevan A. Miller, Deborah L. Taylor, for appellant (case no. 71307).
John R. Grimes, for appellee.
Michael J. Gorby, Suzanne Wynn, amici curiae.