Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Etheridge

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Etheridge

233 S.E.2d 448, 141 Ga. App. 376, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1914

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 7, 1977

Docket53068

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 S.E.2d 448 (Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Etheridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Etheridge, 233 S.E.2d 448, 141 Ga. App. 376, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1914 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Judge.

This is a case involving wrongful death. The plaintiff, as the widow of the deceased, sought damages against several tortfeasors, including the manufacturer and the lessor-distributor, for strict liability within the meaning of Code Ann. § 105-106 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1166, 1167) for alleged defects in the manufacturing, assembling, inspecting, packaging and constructing, as well as the failure to properly warn that cable clamps could be removed from a cable climber and the removal concealed by the plastic or rubber cable cover and that the cable climber was to be used only when the user had independent safety lines in use. She alleges wrongful death of the deceased was proximately caused by the removal of the cable clamps and the resulting fall of the cable climber.

After extensive discovery the court treated motions to dismiss the count as to strict liability as motions for judgment on the pleadings and held a claim in strict-liability under Code Ann. § 105-106, supra, is cognizable under the wrongful death statute based on the obligations and duties placed on a manufacturer, the same being grounded in tort. A certificate of immediate review was granted and the defendant Patent Scaffolding Company appeals. Held:

The question presented to this court, and the only [377]*377question in the case sub judice, is whether or not a plaintiff may maintain an action in Georgia for wrongful death based upon strict liability. We do not attempt to decide whether or not the appellant-defendant comes under the meaning of the definition of "manufacturer” under Code Ann. § 105-106, supra, as this was not the issue before the court for consideration.

Argued November 3, 1976 Decided February 7, 1977 Rehearing denied February 24, 1977 Freeman & Hawkins, Joe C. Freeman, Jr., William Q. Bird, William O. Carter, for appellant. Charles H. Hyatt, Shelfer, Shelfer & Eldridge, Frank M. Eldridge, Roy E. Stephens, Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, John E. Talmadge, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Robert L. Pennington, Greene, Buckley, DeRieux & Jones, John D. Jones, for appellees.

This case is controlled as to the sole question presented by the decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 141 Ga. App. 371 and accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McMurray, Judge.

This is a case involving wrongful death. The plaintiff, as the widow of the deceased, sought damages against several tortfeasors, including the manufacturer and the lessor-distributor, for strict liability within the meaning of Code Ann. § 105-106 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1166, 1167) for alleged defects in the manufacturing, assembling, inspecting, packaging and constructing, as well as the failure to properly warn that cable clamps could be removed from a cable climber and the removal concealed by the plastic or rubber cable cover and that the cable climber was to be used only when the user had independent safety lines in use. She alleges wrongful death of the deceased was proximately caused by the removal of the cable clamps and the resulting fall of the cable climber.

After extensive discovery the court treated motions to dismiss the count as to strict liability as motions for judgment on the pleadings and held a claim in strict-liability under Code Ann. § 105-106, supra, is cognizable under the wrongful death statute based on the obligations and duties placed on a manufacturer, the same being grounded in tort. A certificate of immediate review was granted and the defendant Patent Scaffolding Company appeals. Held:

The question presented to this court, and the only [377]*377question in the case sub judice, is whether or not a plaintiff may maintain an action in Georgia for wrongful death based upon strict liability. We do not attempt to decide whether or not the appellant-defendant comes under the meaning of the definition of "manufacturer” under Code Ann. § 105-106, supra, as this was not the issue before the court for consideration.

Argued November 3, 1976 Decided February 7, 1977 Rehearing denied February 24, 1977 Freeman & Hawkins, Joe C. Freeman, Jr., William Q. Bird, William O. Carter, for appellant. Charles H. Hyatt, Shelfer, Shelfer & Eldridge, Frank M. Eldridge, Roy E. Stephens, Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, John E. Talmadge, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Robert L. Pennington, Greene, Buckley, DeRieux & Jones, John D. Jones, for appellees.

This case is controlled as to the sole question presented by the decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 141 Ga. App. 371 and accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.E.2d 448, 141 Ga. App. 376, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patent-scaffolding-co-v-etheridge-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack