Court Opinion

ID: 9850545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:59:06.363271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:38.981515
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
concurring. Speaking for myself alone, I desire to call attention to the fact that some of the conclusions and interpretations of the dissenters do not coincide with mine. I will give but one instance. The case of Hatcher v. General Electric Co., 112 Ga. App. 585 (145 SE2d 647), is said by the dissent to be authority contrary to the conclusion reached by the majority. In that case the distributor of General Electric’s parts had no actual knowledge that the replaced parts were defective or dangerous. The distributor was charged only with constructive knowledge and therefore General Electric’s negligence was held to be concurrent. The law does not require actual knowledge on the part of the intervening actor as to a specific *880defect. It is enough if it has actual knowledge of a dangerous condition in the vehicle or article in question and could have discovered the particular defect by the exercise of ordinary care.