Chrysler Corp. v. Taylor, 53392
| Decision Date | 28 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53392,53392,2 |
| Citation | 234 S.E.2d 123,141 Ga.App. 671 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 21 UCC Rep.Serv. 767 CHRYSLER CORPORATION v. C. C. TAYLOR |
Alston, Miller & Gaines, J. Michael Kelly, Frank J. Beltran, Atlanta, for appellant.
Richard L. Powell, Marietta, for appellee.
The appellee bought a new Dodge automobile, which had been manufactured by the appellant. He soon discovered that the vehicle had numerous defects. At the appellee's insistence, the appellant made several attempts to repair the car, but was never able to do so to the appellee's satisfaction. The appellee, therefore, brought this suit against the appellant seeking damages for loss of bargain, the cost of a replacement for the defective Dodge, interest paid on his auto, wages lost while attending to the vehicle, and attorney fees. Over the appellant's objections and motions for directed verdict, the case was presented to the jury solely on the grounds of negligence and strict liability for manufacturers. Judgment was entered on a verdict awarding the appellee compensatory and punitive damages, and the appellant appeals.
1. The trial judge erred in his denial of the appellant's motion for directed verdict as to the issue of negligence. The appellee alleged that the appellant was negligent in manufacturing and failing to repair a defective automobile. However, the appellee did not allege that this negligence caused any damage to his person or property other than damages attendant to his receiving a vehicle not up to the standards that he contracted to purchase; he simply sued for loss of the benefit of his bargain. Such damages are not recoverable in negligence. Long v. Jim Letts Oldsmobile, Inc., 135 Ga.App. 293(2), 217 S.E.2d 602 (1975).
2. The trial judge also erred in his denial of the appellant's motion for directed verdict as to the issue of strict liability under Code Ann. § 105-106 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1166, 1167). Code Ann. § 105-106 provides for strict liability of manufacturers "to any natural person . . . who suffers injury to his person or property . . ." We hold that an "injury," within the context of Code Ann. § 105-106, does not include damages stemming from loss of the benefit of one's bargain. "The history of the doctrine of strict liability in tort indicates that it was designed . . . to govern the distinct problem of physical injuries." Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9, 45 Cal.Rptr. 17(11), 403 P.2d 145 (1965).
If a consumer wishes to recover for a loss of bargain through its purchasing of defective goods in the absence of fraud, it should pursue recovery under warranty laws. This distinction between recovery by strict liability in tort and recovery for loss of bargain in warranty is not arbitrary. The distinction rests on the nature of the responsibility which a manufacturer must assume in distributing its products. A manufacturer has a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
...Code); Casa Clara Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla.1993); Chrysler Corp. v. Taylor, 141 Ga.App. 671, 234 S.E.2d 123 (1977) (purchaser of car must sue under warranty law, not strict liability or negligence, for loss of benefit of the bargain); S......
-
Mid Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Curry County Spraying Service, Inc.
...293, 294(2), 217 S.E.2d 602, supra, is not applicable to the strict liability issue. Also distinguishable is Chrysler Corporation v. Taylor, 141 Ga.App. 671(2), 234 S.E.2d 123, where this court held that an "injury" within the context of Code Ann. § 105-106, supra, does not include damages ......
-
Tuscumbia City Sch. Sys. v. Pharmacia Corp.
...only to recover for the engine itself and perhaps any expectation loss. Franklin, When Worlds Collide, supra at 982. 29.141 Ga.App. 671, 234 S.E.2d 123 (Ct.App.1977). In the Taylor case, plaintiff purchased a new Dodge automobile. The car had numerous operating defects that never were repai......
-
Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
...Corp., 190 Colo. 57, 544 P.2d 983, 989 (1975) (business losses not recoverable under strict liability); Chrysler Corp. v. Taylor, 141 Ga.App. 671, 234 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1977) (automobile purchaser must sue under warranty law, not strict liability or negligence, for loss of the benefit of the......