Bodymasters Sports Indus. v. Wimberley
Decision Date | 13 April 1998 |
Docket Number | No. A98A0204, No. A98A0205. |
Citation | 501 S.E.2d 556,232 Ga. App. 170 |
Parties | BODYMASTERS SPORTS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WIMBERLEY. WIMBERLEY v. BODYMASTERS SPORTS INDUSTRIES, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jennings & Sparwath, Stephen H. Sparwath, Marietta, for appellant.
Marvin C. Berkowitz, Alpharetta, Charles F. Fenton III, Dunwoody, for appellee. BLACKBURN, Judge.
On March 30, 1996, Candice J. Wimberley was injured while using an inverted leg press machine manufactured by Bodymasters Sports Industries, Inc. She sued Bodymasters, asserting claims under OCGA § 51-1-11 for defective product design and failure to warn, as well as a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under OCGA § 11-2-315. The trial court granted Bodymasters' motion for summary judgment on the claim for breach of implied warranty, but denied its motion for summary judgment on the other claims. The parties appeal each of these rulings.
Adams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ga.App. 695, 696-697(1), 490 S.E.2d 150 (1997).
The relevant facts are as follows. Wimberley joined the Sportslife health club in 1992, and worked out four to six times a week over the next four years. She began using the Bodymasters leg press machine as part of her normal exercise routine around May 1994. She used the machine in order to strengthen her left knee, which had been weakened in a childhood injury and had required about 29 surgeries over the years.
The inverted leg press machine may be used for calf exercises or for quadricep/hamstring exercises. For calf exercises, the lifter places free weights in whatever amount she desires onto the bar, then sits in an adjustable seat tilted backward so that she is facing slightly upward and her legs are raised. She then places her feet on a rectangular metal plate, with raised traction lines, connected to the weight bar and pushes the plate up until her legs are almost fully extended and thereafter raises and lowers the weights by flexing her ankles. She then accomplishes her routine by repeating the exercise. A sticker affixed to the machine concerning this particular exercise reads: "CAUTION—HANDLES MUST BE IN LOCKED POSITION WHEN DOING CALF EXERCISES." (Emphasis supplied.)
When setting up the machine to do the quadricep/hamstring exercises, it is necessary to remove the pin that otherwise prevents the plate from descending closer than approximately 33 inches from the seat. The removal of the pin is a part of the design of the equipment to permit the performance of the quadricep exercises. In performing the quadricep exercise, the user assumes the same position as for the calf exercises. She then pushes the plate up with her feet, lets the plate descend toward her body as far as she desires, and then repeats the exercise. The machine does not have a series of safety pin holes into which the pin could be inserted by the user to prevent the full force of the falling weights from crashing onto the user's legs forcing them to hyperflex, or other safety device. At the time of the injury, Wimberley was aware that there was no safety mechanism to stop the descent of the weights while in the quadricep/hamstring mode.
On the date of the injury, Wimberley began her normal exercise routine at about 7:00 a.m. After using several other machines, she proceeded to use the inverted leg press. After putting 200 pounds of weight on the machine, Wimberley converted the machine to the quadricep mode by removing the pin. While pushing the plate upward, her feet slipped down the plate, causing the entire weight to be supported by the balls of her feet, which were unable to bear the weight. As a result, her legs were forced down rapidly toward her chest, causing a hyperflexion of the knee and fracturing her patella. At no point did the plate or weights actually strike her knee.
1. Design defect. (a) In her design defect claim, Wimberley alleges that the machine was defectively designed because it was not equipped with a "dead man" lock that would stop the weights from descending so far as to force a user's knees to her chest if her foot slips from the foot plate while in the quadricep mode. Bodymasters contends that this defect was open and obvious, and that the trial court erred in holding that the open and obvious doctrine is no longer an absolute defense to a design defect claim following the Supreme Court's decision in Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732, 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994). For the reasons discussed below, this contention is without merit and the trial court did not err in this regard.
Prior to Banks, Georgia courts held that an injured party could not recover in a design defect case where the defect was open and obvious. See Weatherby v. Honda Motor Co., 195 Ga.App. 169, 170 393 S.E.2d 64 (1990). The open and obvious doctrine was not applied as an affirmative defense, however, but went to the issue of whether the product was "defective" in the first instance. Id. at 170-171, 393 S.E.2d 64; see also Raymond v. Amada Co., Ltd., 925 F.Supp. 1572, 1578 (N.D.Ga.1996). The rationale for the doctrine was that "a product is not defective if the absence of a safety device is open and obvious." Weatherby, supra at 170, 393 S.E.2d 64. In applying the doctrine, "the decision is made on the basis of an objective view of the product, and the subjective perceptions of the user or injured party are irrelevant." Id. at 171, 393 S.E.2d 64.
In Banks, the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that a product is not defective where it is "reasonably suited for its intended purpose and where the presence or absence of a design feature [does] not prevent the product from functioning properly in its intended use." (Punctuation omitted.) Banks, supra at 733(1), 450 S.E.2d 671, overruling Mann v. Coast Catamaran Corp., 254 Ga. 201, 326 S.E.2d 436 (1985). The court instead adopted a "risk-utility" analysis to be used in evaluating design defect cases, "whereby the risks inherent in a product design are weighed against the utility or benefit derived from the product." Banks, supra at 734(1), 450 S.E.2d 671. The court identified several factors relevant to such an analysis, including "the usefulness of the product; the gravity and severity of the danger posed by the design; the likelihood of that danger; the avoidability of the danger, i.e., the user's knowledge of the product, publicity surrounding the danger, or the efficacy of warnings, as well as common knowledge and the expectation of danger; the user's ability to avoid danger; the state of the art at the time the product is manufactured; the ability to eliminate danger without impairing the usefulness of the product or making it too expensive; and the feasibility of spreading the loss in the setting of the product's price or by purchasing insurance... the feasibility of an alternative design; the availability of an effective substitute for the product which meets the same need but is safer; the financial cost of the improved design; and the adverse effects from the alternative." Id. at 736-737, n. 6, 450 S.E.2d 671.
Although Banks did not expressly address the open and obvious doctrine, the clear import of the decision is that no one factor absolutely controls the analysis as to whether a product is defective. Indeed, Banks identifies "the user's knowledge of the product," "common knowledge and the expectation of danger," and "the user's ability to avoid danger" as several factors to be included in the analysis, without indicating that any of such factors is controlling. Accordingly, it is clear that under Banks, the open and obvious nature of the danger is but one factor to be considered in determining whether a product is defective. See Raymond, supra, 925 F.Supp. at 1578 ( ). See also Maleski, Eldridge's Georgia Law of Products Liability, § 6B-3 at 62 (Supp.1991) ().
Therefore, even assuming that the danger posed by the leg press machine was open and obvious, this factor is not dispositive as to whether the machine was defective, and Bodymasters was not entitled to summary judgment on the design defect claim on this ground.
(b) Bodymasters also argues that it was entitled to summary judgment on the design defect claim because there was no issue of material fact as to whether the machine was defective. In particular, Bodymasters argues that Wimberley presented no evidence that an alternative design was possible or would have made the machine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cole v. General Motors Corp.
...v. Jett-Aire Corp. Aviation Mgmt. of Cent. Fla., Inc., 637 So.2d 968, 970 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1994); Bodymasters Sports Indus. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga.App. 170, 501 S.E.2d 556, 561 (1998); Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc., 132 Idaho 816, 979 P.2d 1174, 1183 (1999); Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 27......
-
Simonet v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
...Gen. Contractor v. Jett-Aire Corporate Aviation Mgmt., 637 So.2d 968, 970 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994); Bodymasters Sports Indus. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga.App. 170, 501 S.E.2d 556, 561 (1998); Royal Von Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc., 132 Idaho 816, 979 P.2d 1174, 1183 (1999); Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co.,......
-
Ogletree v. NAVISTAR INTERN. TRANSP., A97A0368.
...S.E.2d 97 (1997). 9. 269 Ga. 443, 500 S.E.2d 570, supra. 10. 264 Ga. 732, 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994). 11. See Bodymasters Sports Indus. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga.App. 170, 501 S.E.2d 556 (1998). 12. 227 Ga.App. at 14, 488 S.E.2d 13. (Citation omitted.) Banks, supra, 264 Ga. at 734, 450 S.E.2d 671. 14......
-
Wheeler v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.
...Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litig., 711 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1366 (M.D.Ga.2010); see also Bodymasters Sports Indus., Inc. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga.App. 170, 174, 501 S.E.2d 556 (1998). “[I]f a defendant is not the seller to the plaintiff-purchaser, the plaintiff as the ultimate purchaser......
-
Do's and Don'ts When Handling a Product Liability Matter in Georgia
...applies to "sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind"). [25] Bodymasters Sports Indus., Inc. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174, 501 S.E.2d 556, 561 (1998); Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., Inc., 131 Ga.App. 747, 753-54, 206 S.E.2d 857, 860 (1974). However, O.C.......
-
Torts - Deron R. Hicks and Jacob E. Daly
...of the product's danger is only one factor that affects the risk-utility analysis); Bodymasters Sports Indus., Inc. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 173, 501 S.E.2d 556, 560 (1998) (affirming the trial court's denial of summary judgment because the openness and obviousness of the danger was ......
-
Product Liability - Franklin P. Brannen, Jr. and Jacob E. Daly
...271 Ga. at 808, 523 S.E.2d at 569 (punctuation and internal quotation marks omitted). 215. Bodymasters Sports Indus., Inc. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174, 501 S.E.2d 556, 560 (1998). 216. Vaughn, 266 Ga. at 864, 471 S.E.2d at 868. 217. Id. 218. Spooner v. City of Camilla, 256 Ga. App. ......
-
Product Liability
...808, 523 S.E.2d at 569 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 170. Bodymasters Sports Indus., Inc. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174, 501 S.E.2d 556, 560 (1998).171. Vaughn, 266 Ga. at 864, 471 S.E.2d at 868.172. Id.173. See, e.g., Admiral Ins. Co. v. State Broadcast......