Jones v. Cranman's Sporting Goods

• Decision Date: 20 June 1977
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 53865,53865,2
• Citation: 237 S.E.2d 402,142 Ga.App. 838
• Parties: , 22 UCC Rep.Serv. 371 Bobby L. JONES v. CRANMAN'S SPORTING GOODS et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 402

237 S.E.2d 402

142 Ga.App. 838, 22 UCC Rep.Serv. 371

Bobby L. JONES v. CRANMAN'S SPORTING GOODS et al.

No. 53865.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

June 20, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1977.

Smith & Portman, Ralph R. Lorberbaum, Barnard M. Portman, Savannah, for appellant.

Lee & Clark, Fred S. Clark, Savannah, for appellees.

QUILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff brought a complaint in Chatham Superior Court against Cranman's Sporting Goods and Garcia Corporation, seeking damages for injuries sustained on August 11, 1974, when a rifle he had purchased from Cranman's exploded during loading. It was alleged that Garcia was the manufacturer of the rifle in question; that Garcia sold the rifle to Cranman's and at the time the product was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use it was intended for and was in fact in a defective condition; that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the defective condition and was not warned by either of the defendants that any defect might exist; that Cranman's sold the rifle and ammunition to be used with the rifle and thus there was an implied warranty of merchantability that the goods sold were fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; that Cranman's breached the contract of implied warranty and fitness in not inspecting the goods before sale; that the defective condition of the rifle, the acts and failure to act by both defendants were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. The complaint then set forth injuries and damages incurred by the plaintiff and sought recovery in the amount of $80,995.95.

The defendants' answers denied the material allegations of the plaintiff's complaint. After discovery, the filing of interrogatories, affidavits, and depositions, the defendants moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial judge granted each of the defendants' motions for summary judgments and the plaintiff appeals to this court. Held :

No question is made that the plaintiff purchased both the gun and the ammunition from Cranman's. Subsequently, the gun was fired once in the plaintiff's presence. Sometime thereafter, the plaintiff, having obtained a scope for the weapon, decided to fire it, but upon placing the ammunition in the weapon and attempting to close the bolt the rifle exploded causing injuries to the plaintiff's right hand.

In considering this case, we repeat the time honored concept that "the party opposing the motion for summary judgment is entitled to all reasonable doubts and favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence." Mixon v. Phoenix Landscaping, 136 Ga.App. 344, 345, 221 S.E.2d 225, 226. Here, since each of the defendants stands in a different relation to the plaintiff we treat them separately.

1. Defendant Cranman's.

( a) Between the buyer and the merchant seller of goods there is an implied warranty of fitness. Georgia U.C.C. § 109A-2-314(2)(c) (Code Ann. § 109A-2-314(2)(c); Ga.L.1962, pp. 156, 189).

In this regard, the thrust of the principal contention made by the defendant is that it was not given notice as required by Georgia U.C.C. § 109A-2-607(3) (Code Ann. § 109A-2-607(3); Ga.L.1962, pp. 156, 215). This section requires that a buyer must, within a reasonable time after discovery of a breach, notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy. Remedy is defined as "any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal." Georgia U.C.C. § 109A-1-201(34) (Code Ann. § 109A-1-201(34); G.L.1962,[142 Ga.App. 840] pp. 156, 161; 1963, pp. 188, 189).

The Official Comment to the Uniform Commercial Code with regard to § 2-607 reads: "The time of notification is to be determined by applying commercial standards to a merchant buyer. 'A reasonable time' for notification from a retail consumer is to be judged by different standards so that in his case it will be extended, for the rule of requiring notification is designed to defeat commercial bad faith, not to deprive a good faith consumer of his remedy. The content of the notification need merely be sufficient to let the seller know that the transaction is still troublesome and must be watched." (Emphasis supplied.) 2 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code 204, Official Code Comment § 2-607:1(4).

In this case the record is silent as to the precise time notice was given to the defendant. Since the burden was on the defendant to establish that no notice was given, summary judgment would not be proper as to this issue. Furthermore, the question of a reasonable time and reasonable notice would be for the jury.

It is argued that the proof offered by the plaintiff failed to establish that the rifle was defective. The fact that the rifle exploded during loading was some evidence that it was unfit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. See the analogous situation in Fender v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 138 Ga.App. 31, 225 S.E.2d 691. Moreover, on summary judgment the burden was upon the defendant, as movant, to positively establish that there was no defect, and that there was no breach of the implied warranty under Georgia U.C.C. § 109A-2-314. Parson v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 129 Ga.App. 218(1), 199 S.E.2d 396; Wheat v. Montgomery, 130 Ga.App. 202, 206, 202 S.E.2d 664; Prairieland Broadcasters of Ga. v. Thompson, 135 Ga.App. 73, 217 S.E.2d 296.

The movant failed to show that the plaintiff could not recover on the basis of implied warranty.

( b) The evidence further showed that an employee of Cranman's inspected the rifle before delivering it to the plaintiff. This fact is disputed by the president of Cranman's but for the purposes of summary judgment will be assumed to be true. Having made an inspection, Cranman's would be liable for any patent defect which the inspection might reveal and could be negligent for not discovering such defects as might reasonably have been unearthed. See Home Owners Loan Corp. v. Brazzeal, 62 Ga.App. 683, 692, 9 S.E.2d 773; Palagano v. Georgian Terrace Hotel Co., 123 Ga.App 502, 506, 181 S.E.2d 512. The defendant Cranman's also failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it was not negligent so as to authorize the grant of a summary judgment.

2. Defendant Garcia.

Garcia contends that it was not liable under the theory of implied warranty.

A question was raised in the court below as to whether Garcia was the manufacturer of the rifle. In argument before this court, plaintiff's counsel conceded that the weapon was manufactured by a foreign corporation.

What then is Garcia's status? The record does reveal the weapon was accompanied by a card which expressly stated the rifle was "fully guaranteed" by Firearms International Corp. By affidavit the plaintiff related: "That it has come within my knowledge and belief from information supplied to me by the Defendants that Firearms International Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Garcia Corporation and now goes under the name F-I Industries, Inc."

The concept of "piercing the corporate veil, or disregarding the...