Hunt v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., HARLEY-DAVIDSON

• Decision Date: 31 July 1978
• Docket Number: No. 55968,HARLEY-DAVIDSON,55968
• Parties: , 98 A.L.R.3d 313 HUNT v.MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 15

248 S.E.2d 15

147 Ga.App. 44, 98 A.L.R.3d 313

HUNT v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

No. 55968.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Submitted May 22, 1978.

Decided July 13, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 31, 1978.

Frank M. Eldridge, Curtis R. Richardson, Decatur, for appellant.

N. Forrest Montet, David M. Leonard, Greene, Buckley, DeRieux & Jones, Raymond H. Vizethann, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

Hunt brought suit against appellee Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., alleging, in two counts, negligence and products liability, as a result of which he had sustained injury. The trial court granted summary judgment, as to both counts, in favor of appellee, and Hunt appeals. Held :

1. The uncontroverted evidence shows that Hunt purchased from a dealer a Harley-Davidson motorcycle manufactured by appellee, and approximately six weeks after the purchase, appellant collided with the rear end of an automobile which he was following. As a result of the collision, appellant's leg was injured. Appellant stated in a deposition that the motorcycle was, at all times pertinent, in normal operating condition and that its brakes were functioning properly. Appellant's sole contention is that his injuries resulted from appellee's failure to install "crash bars," tubular steel bars which bolt to the motorcycle frame in front of the rider's knees. Appellant stated that, prior to the accident, he had many years' experience riding motorcycles, both with and without "crash bars," and that he was aware of their use and purpose, as well as the dangers attendant upon riding a motorcycle unequipped with "crash bars." Finally, appellant stated that, at the time of purchase, he inquired of the vendor whether crash bars were available for his motorcycle, was unable to obtain them at that time, and made no formal order or request for their order or installation.

2. The issue presented is whether the manufacturer's product was "not merchantable and reasonably suited for the use intended" within the meaning of Code Ann. § 105-106. That section has been construed to mean "that the manufacturer's product when sold by the manufacturer was defective," Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 218 S.E.2d 580, and, according to Restatement of the Law, Torts 2d, 347, 351, § 402A, comment h: "A product is not in a defective condition when it is safe for normal handling and consumption. If the injury results from abnormal handling . . . the seller is not liable. Where, however, he has reason to anticipate that danger may result from a particular use . . . he may be required to give adequate warning of the danger . . . and a product sold without such warning is in a defective condition." The Restatement has been interpreted to mean that "a defective condition obtains Only when 'the product is, at the time it leaves the seller's hands, in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, . . .' " Sec. 402A com. g." Williams v. Brasea, Inc., 497 F.2d 67, 79 (5th Cir. 1974) reh. den. 513 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1975). As to the manufacturer's duty to warn, "(i)t is well-established that there is no duty resting upon a manufacturer or seller to warn of a product-connected danger which is obvious or generally known, or of which the person who claims to be entitled to the warning has actual knowledge. The same rule applies where it appears that the person using the product should know of the danger, or should in using the product discover the danger." 63 Am.Jur.2d 60, Products Liability, § 51. This rule has manifested itself in the doctrine of assumption of the risk, which stipulates that "if the user or consumer discovers the defect and is aware of the danger, but nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product he is barred from recovery." 63 Am.Jur.2d 154, 155, Products Liability, § 150; Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, supra, 234 Ga. p. 870, 218 S.E.2d p. 582.

3. The doctrine of "strict liability" has markedly increased the manufacturers' duty to design and produce "safe" goods. Although the benefits of safer products are certainly desirable, there is a point at which they are outweighed by the cost of attaining them. As the Supreme Court of this state has recognized: "Many products can not be made completely safe for use and some can not be made safe at all. However, such products may be useful and desirable. If they are properly prepared, manufactured, packaged and accompanied with adequate...