Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 22 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 36330,36330 |
| Parties | COLT INDUSTRIES OPERATING CORPORATION v. COLEMAN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Daryll Love, Anthony L. Cochran, Atlanta, for appellant.
Edward L. Savell, Atlanta, for appellee.
Mrs. Clark brought suit against Doris Coleman and Colt Industries Operating Corporation for injuries sustained by her when a .25 caliber pistol manufactured by Colt fell from Coleman's purse, discharged and struck Mrs. Clark. Coleman cross-claimed against Colt alleging that the pistol was defectively designed in that it would fire even when it was in an uncocked position and that the instructions furnished with the pistol failed to contain proper safety instructions. Coleman sought indemnification from Colt for any damages found against her.
The main action and the cross-claim were bifurcated at trial. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Colt as to the safety instructions issued because the evidence showed that Mrs. Coleman never read the instructions. The jury awarded Mrs. Clark $225,000 and her husband $5,000 against both Mrs. Coleman and Colt. After the jury verdict, Coleman and Colt each moved for a directed verdict on the cross claim. The trial court granted Colt's motion for a directed verdict.
The Court of Appeals reversed the granting of the directed verdict in favor of Colt concluding that while the jury verdict against Coleman indicated that she was negligent toward Mrs. Clark, the verdict could not determine whether Coleman's negligence was active or passive. Only if Coleman was passively negligent could she seek indemnification from her joint tortfeasor. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have left the question of whether Coleman's negligence was active or passive for determination by the jury.
We reverse and reinstate the directed verdict in favor of Colt. "If the separate and independent acts of negligence of two or more persons or corporations combine naturally and directly to produce a single indivisible injury other than a nuisance, and if a rational basis does not exist for an apportionment of the resulting damages among the various causes, then the actors are joint tortfeasors, jointly and severally liable for the full amount of plaintiff's damages." Mitchell v. Gilson, 233 Ga. 453, 454, 211 S.E.2d 744 (1975). In this case, although Coleman was found to be negligent, Colt was held liable under strict liability. In Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 Ga. 657, 238 S.E.2d 361 (1977), this court held that strict liability imposed under Code Ann. § 105-106 is not based on negligence, and that the statute should be strictly construed because it is in derogation of the common law. However, the language of § 105-106 states that the manufacturer "shall be liable in tort." It is clear that the theoretical basis of the claim is in tort. Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 218 S.E.2d 580 (1975). If the manufacturer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Carbide Corp. v. Thiokol Corp.
...is one for contribution." Crockett v. Uniroyal, Inc., 772 F.2d 1524, 1530-31 (11th Cir.1985) (citing Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Coleman, 246 Ga. 559, 560, 272 S.E.2d 251 (Ga.1980)). In an action for contribution or indemnity, the parties must be joint tortfeasors, and one party must......
-
Thyssen Elevator Co. v. Drayton-Bryan Co.
...actively negligent. 41 AM.JUR.2D § 28 ("Both parties actively negligent") (footnote omitted); see also Colt Indus. Operating Corp. v. Coleman, 246 Ga. 559, 560, 272 S.E.2d 251 (1980) ("if the negligence of the tortfeasor is passive as opposed to active, a tortfeasor can seek indemnity again......
-
Jones v. Otis Elevator Co.
...tortfeasor's active, positive acts of negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Id; Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Coleman, 246 Ga. 559, 272 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1980); Peacock Const. Co. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 121 Ga.App. 711, 713, 175 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1970); Central of ......
-
Alexander v. General Motors Corp., A95A1400
...concluded that Alexander's strict liability claim pursuant to OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(1) sounded in tort (Colt Indus. Operating Corp. v. Coleman, 246 Ga. 559, 560, 272 S.E.2d 251 (1980)), and that the Georgia rule of lex loci delicti governs the decision as to whether Virginia or Georgia substant......