Eyster v. Borg-Warner Corp., BORG-WARNER
| Decision Date | 01 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | BORG-WARNER,No. 1,No. 49149,49149,1 |
| Citation | 131 Ga.App. 702,206 S.E.2d 668 |
| Parties | Leonard J. EYSTER et al. v.CORPORATION et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Burnside, Dye & Miller, Thomas R. Burnside, Jr., Jay M. Sawilowsky, Augusta, for appellants.
Harris, Chance & McCracken, Kenneth R. Chance, Stanley G. Jackson, Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett & Johnson, Douglas D. Batchelor, Jr., Fulcher, Hagler, Harper & Reed, Gould B. Hagler, Augusta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In this 'Products Liability' case we are called upon to decide if the trial judge was correct in directing a verdict for the manufacturer of a heating and air-conditioning system.
Following a fire which caused plaintiffs considerable damage to their residence and household effects this suit was instituted by them against four defendants. These were the manufacturer of the heating and air-conditioning unit, the manufacturer's distributor which had installed the unit, the company which had contracted to inspect, maintain, and repair that unit, and the builder of the house from whom the plaintiffs had purchased their dwelling. Suits of this nature against multi-defendants containing several counts of negligence and breaches of express and implied warranties are now commonplace by reason of today's lawyers being better trained through Continuing Legal Education seminars conducted by the organized bar.
In the instant suit our concern is solely with the negligence count wherein was alleged joint and concurring acts of negligence arising from the installation of a Borg-Warner heating and air-conditioning unit by its distributor. In performing this task distributor's employees attached aluminum wires from the house electrical network to the copper connector terminals on the unit. This connection, plaintiffs assert, was the causa causans of the conflagration since such a joinder may lead to both creeping (a loosening of the connection) and a hazardous heat build-up. Thus distributor was alleged to have been negligent by installing the unit in an improper and dangerous manner. The negligence of the other defendants revolved around the supposed malfeasance of the distributor. The maintenance concern was charged with negligence in failing to discover the aluminum-copper connection and the manufacturer, Borg-Warner, was said to have been negligent in failing to warn its distributor of the dangers inherent in an aluminum-copper connection. A voluntary dismissal was entered against the builder.
At the conclusion of plaintiffs' evidence defendant manufacturer made a motion for directed verdict in its behalf which was granted by the court. The case then proceeded against the remaining two defendants the distributor and the maintenance firm. Verdicts were returned for both defendants absolving them of negligence. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdicts. Thereafter, plaintiffs sought a new trial which was denied. This appeal followed in which the three defendants are appellees. Because plaintiffs have voluntarily abandoned their enumerations of error dealing with the general grounds we are confronted solely with the assignment as to the directed verdict for the manufacturer defendant.
1. A review of the transcript of evidence discloses that, as plaintiffs allege, the manufacturer did in fact fail to warn against the use of aluminum-copper connections. (T. 45, 54). However, the evidence also discloses that (1) the manufacturer's instructions specifically directed the use of copper wire (T. 46, 52); (2) these instructions contained an express limitation that the unit should be installed in accordance with national and local electrical codes, at least one of which warns against the danger of an improper aluminum-copper connection (T. 54, 111); and (3) it was contrary to generally accepted trade practice to connect aluminum and copper wiring (T. 67).
Furthermore, in cross examining an agent of the defendant manufacturer, counsel for plaintiffs elicited the following: (T. 54). Thereby, plaintiffs' evidence demonstrated that those who are franchised to install this Borg-Warner product should, in the ordinary course of events, have been aware of the danger of the questionable connection, since such peril was a matter of common knowledge to those in the trade. More importantly, plaintiffs' evidence showed that it was contrary to the generally accepted practice to connect aluminum and copper wiring. (T. 67).
A review of the manufacturer's instructions contained in a document entitled 'Technical Manual' (R. 58-93) substantiates that installation of the unit was not to be performed by laymen but only by trained, experienced technicians who could understand and follow the detailed specifications and who as a part of their trade education should have acquired knowledge of the risk of an aluminum-copper connection.
2. As the specific danger of the aluminum-copper connection was one commonly known to those in the trade, there was no duty on the manufacturer to warn of this hazard. There is no 'duty on the manufacturer or seller to warn of obvious common dangers connected with the use of a product.' Poppell v. Waters, 126 Ga.App. 385, 388, 190 S.E.2d 815, 817. 'Where the product is vended to a particular group or profession, the manufacturer is not required to warn against risks generally known to such group or profession.' Frumer & Friedman, Products Liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., CIBA-GEIGY
...defective when it is sold without a warning. Comment h, § 402A." 284 Or. at 576-77, n. 8, 588 P.2d 18. In Eyster v. Borg-Warner Corporation, 131 Ga.App. 702, 206 S.E.2d 668 (1974), an electrician installing a heating and air conditioning unit attached house aluminum wires to copper wires in......
-
R & R Insulation Serv. Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co. R & R Insulation Serv. Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co. Crane Co. v. Royal Indem. Co. Royal Indem. Co. v. R & R Insulation Serv. Inc.
...miswiring an electrical appliance should be both open and obvious to an experienced installer.”). 22. See Eyster v. Borg–Warner Corp., 131 Ga.App. 702, 706(4), 206 S.E.2d 668 (1974). 23. See Boyce, 269 Ga.App. at 897(1)(c)(2), 605 S.E.2d 384. 24. For the same remaining factual questions, we......
-
Argo v. Perfection Products Co.
...profession, a manufacturer has no duty to warn against the risks generally known to that group or profession. Eyster v. Borg-Warner Corp., 131 Ga.App. 702, 206 S.E.2d 668 (1974). The evidence shows that employees of CertainTeed understood the function of the red safety button yet allowed th......
-
Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co.
...the manufacturer is not required to warn against risks generally known to such group or profession.' [Cits.]" Eyster v. Borg-Warner, 131 Ga.App. 702, 704(2), 206 S.E.2d 668 (1974). Evidence submitted by Stiltjes shows that pyrethrins are common pesticide ingredients and are considered so ef......
-
The Sophisticated User Defense: It’s Not Just for Drug Companies Anymore
...S.N.C., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1362 (N.D.Ga. 1999). [4]McCombs v. Synthes, 277 Ga. 252, 587 S.E.2d 594 (2003). [5]Wheat, at 1363. [6]131 Ga. App. 702, 206 S.E.2d 668 (1974). [7] Id. at 670 (citing a New York case and two treatises on products liability and tort law). [8]874 F.2d 1563 (11th Ci......