Barger v. Garden Way, Inc.
Decision Date | 13 March 1998 |
Docket Number | No. A97A2329., No. A97A2328 |
Citation | 231 Ga. App. 723,499 S.E.2d 737 |
Parties | BARGER v. GARDEN WAY, INC. GARDEN WAY, INC. v. BARGER. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Phears & Moldovan, H. Waynes Phears, Richard E. Harris, Norcross, for appellant.
Drew, Eckl & Farnham, W. Wray Eckl, Peter H. Schmidt II, Atlanta, for appellee. McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.
Plaintiff John H. Barger brought this product liability action against defendant Garden Way, Inc. ("Garden Way") d/b/a Troy-Bilt Manufacturing Company, seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained when his hand was allegedly sucked into the discharge chute while the chipper/shredder was running, as plaintiff bent over to brush away a stray or loose bit of vine extending from the discharge chute.
Plaintiff purchased a Troy-Bilt Tomahawk chipper/shredder for personal use in his garden. On April 3, 1992, plaintiff The manual directs the operator to "remove the discharge screen from the chipper/shredder before shredding wet or green materials such as wet, matted leaves, gone-by vegetables, green vegetation like squash vines, etc."
On April 4, 1992, plaintiff had wet or green garden materials to shred. He Plaintiff sustained "serious permanent injury to his hand and arm, including dismemberment and permanent loss of use of what remained of his hand."
The theories of recovery included strict liability for defective design, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn. The complaint further demanded punitive damages, as well as the expenses of litigation for Garden Way's alleged stubborn litigiousness. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for defendant on all theories of liability. This appeal followed. Held:
1. Before trial, plaintiff moved to require defendant to produce "statements in Garden Way's possession by other persons injured by the product at issue in this case; and [further, to] allow disclosure of relevant information by persons otherwise prohibited from making disclosures [allegedly] due to the existence of confidentiality orders or agreements." Garden Way opposed such disclosure of testimony by witnesses who had entered into confidentiality agreements, on the ground that the trial court We are not shown the location, in a record of over 3,670 pages and a transcript of over 3,500 pages, of the precise language of the Confidential Settlement Orders/Agreements as relied on by defendants to preclude discovery of witnesses with relevant knowledge of allegedly similar accidents or injuries.
The trial court denied the motion, concluding it had no authority "which would allow th[e] Court to require Defendant to consent to a breach of confidentiality agreements or the confidentiality orders of other courts." The denial of this motion, in the nature of a motion to compel discovery, is plaintiff's first enumeration of error.
(a) OCGA § 13-3-45 provides: (Citations omitted.) Hanley v. Savannah Bank, etc., Co., 208 Ga. 585, 586, 68 S.E.2d 581. Moreover, "[i]f the consideration upon which a contract is based was given as a result of a mutual mistake of fact or of law, the contract cannot be enforced." OCGA § 13-5-4.
(b) The public policy of Georgia applicable to this case is stated generally in OCGA § 24-1-2: More specifically, the applicable public policy of Georgia is established by OCGA § 9-11-26(b)(1): "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...." See, e.g., Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga.App. 337, 338(1), 428 S.E.2d 89.
(c) In a document memorializing an oral settlement agreement, a "provision that the agreement would be confidential unless disclosed as required by subpoena, [court] order, or law ..." was found to be valid consideration entitling the parties to enforce that agreement. Mitchell v. Lucas, 210 Ga. App. 821, 822, 437 S.E.2d 792. Like the trial court, we are not aware of any binding precedent holding that a confidential settlement agreement without such a provision is illegal as against public policy. But we agree with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia that a court order purporting to prohibit a witness from testifying in response to a subpoena, subsequent court order, or notice of deposition does violate the public policy of Georgia. See Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 147 F.R.D. 270, 272[3-5] (S.D.Ga.1993) ( ). The public policy of Georgia does not Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. Titanium Metals Corp. of America, 91 F.R.D. 84, 87-88[1] (E.D.N.Y. 1981).
(d) In our view, a provision that a party to a confidential settlement agreement may nevertheless testify or otherwise comply with a subpoena, court order, or applicable law is an implicit term in such a confidential settlement agreement. Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga.App. 695, 698, 446 S.E.2d 199. Such an interpretation gives full effect to the legitimate purposes of any confidential settlement agreement without running afoul of the public policies of Georgia. In the case sub judice, the trial court erred in concluding that a confidential settlement agreement, even if incorporated as another court's final order, can operate to preclude discovery by Georgia litigants of the parties to that confidential settlement agreement.
2. Where a judgment or ruling is based on an erroneous theory of law, or upon a misapprehension of the applicable law, reversal is required. All Phase Elec. Supply Co. v. Foster & Cooper, Inc., 193 Ga.App. 232, 233(2), 234, 387 S.E.2d 429. In the case sub judice, the trial court's erroneous ruling on a discovery matter cannot be deemed harmless in this instance. Consequently, we must reverse and remand for additional discovery consistent with this opinion. Upon a subsequent showing that newly discovered evidence is relevant, admissible, and likely to affect the outcome, a new trial is required.
3. Plaintiff's remaining enumerations have been considered and are found to have been rendered moot.
4. In the cross-appeal, defendant first enumerates the denial of its motion for directed verdict as to each of plaintiff's claims, arguing that plaintiff assumed the risk of an open and obvious hazard, and that plaintiff deliberately misused the chipper/shredder by operating the machine when it was partially disassembled.
Defendant's responses to interrogatories stated in part: Plaintiff testified that, after he had finished mulching wet and green vegetation with the discharge screen removed (as directed by the owner's manual), he intended to "run all the gasoline out of the machine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Estate of Forrister
...raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the consequences.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Barger v. Garden Way, Inc., 231 Ga.App. 723, 728(7), 499 S.E.2d 737 (1998) (full concurrence in Division 7); see also General Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 213 Ga.App. 875, 885(8)(a), 447......
-
Johns v. Suzuki Motor of Am., Inc.
...in strict liability actions."); Ray v. Ford Motor Co. , 237 Ga. App. 316, 319-320, 514 S.E.2d 227 (1999) ; Barger v. Garden Way, Inc. , 231 Ga. App. 723, 727, 499 S.E.2d 737 (1998) ; Continental Research Corp. v. Reeves , 204 Ga. App. 120, 128, 419 S.E.2d 48 (1992) (physical precedent only)......
-
Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (In re C.R. Bard, Inc., MDL. No. 2187, Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig.)
...have noted that regulatory "compliance does tend to show" this high willfulness standard has not been met. Barger v. Garden Way, Inc., 231 Ga.App. 723, 499 S.E.2d 737, 743 (1998).Although the question remains one of federal, not state, evidentiary law, federal courts are not likely to disag......
-
Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
...practices in determining products liability. (See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. [Docket 451], at 16 (quoting Barger v. Garden Way, Inc., 231 Ga.App. 723, 499 S.E.2d 737, 743 (1998) )). At trial, I excluded other manufacturers' treatment of the MSDS in order to “avoid disentangling” this case with ot......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby, Jason Crawford, and Teresa T. Abell
...v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 197 Ga. App. 852, 852, 399 S.E.2d 708, 709 (1990). 109. 227 Ga. App. at 434-35, 489 S.E.2d at 155-56. 110. 231 Ga. App. 723, 499 S.E.2d 737 (1998). 111. Id. at 724, 499 S.E.2d at 740. 112. Id. 113. 231 Ga. App. at 724-25, 499 S.E.2d at 740-41 (citing O.C.G.A. Sec......
-
Do's and Don'ts When Handling a Product Liability Matter in Georgia
...that at trial he could meet the intermediate standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence"). [82] Barger v. Garden Way, Inc., 231 Ga.App. 723, 728, 499 S.E.2d 737, 743 (1998). [83] Stone Man, Inc. v. Green, 263 Ga. 470, 471-72, 435 S.E.2d 205, 206 (1993). See also Ivy v. Ford Motor Co......
-
History Uprooted: Georgia Applies Apportionment to Strict Liability Claims
...at 189, 830 S.E.2d at 554.54. O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 (2020).55. Suzuki, 351 Ga. App. at 197, 830 S.E.2d at 559.56. Barger v. Garden Way, 231 Ga. App. 723, 727, 726 S.E.2d 737, 742 (1998); see also Deere & Co., 250 Ga. at 520, 299 S.E.2d at 707.57. Deere & Co., 250 Ga. at 520, 299 S.E.2d at 707......
-
Recent Developments in Georgia Product Liability
...Corp., 168 Ga. App. at 755-756, 309 S.E.2d at 923. 47. Rose, 229 Ga. App. at 853-854, 495 S.E.2d at 83. 48. Barger v. Garden Way, Inc., 231 Ga. App. 723, S.E.2d 737 (1998). 49. 273 Ga. at 456, 543 S.E.2d at 24. 50. 237 Ga. App. at 319, 514 S.E.2d at 231. 51. 231 Ga. App. 723, 499 S.E.2d 737......