Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., Inc.

Decision Date02 February 1977
Docket NumberNo. 53207,No. 2,53207,2
Citation233 S.E.2d 33,141 Ga.App. 175
Parties, 21 UCC Rep.Serv. 463 Annie L. PIERCE v. LIBERTY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., et al
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Calhoun & Donaldson, John R. Calhoun, Savannah, for appellant.

Bouhan, Williams & Levy, James M. Thomas, Falligant, Karsman, Kent & Toporek, Stanley M. Karsman, Timothy F. Callaway, III, Savannah, for appellees.

STOLZ, Judge.

The appellant bought a porch swing kit from appellee Liberty Furniture Company and assembled the set on her porch. Liberty had purchased the kit in a sealed package, complete with oak chair and hardware from appellee Gore and Easterling Chair Company. The hardware was not constructed by Gore, but was bought by Gore from another company in a closed, plastic container for insertion in the swing kit. On the day of purchase, the appellant attempted to sit on her swing, which collapsed and injured her due to the breaking of one of the hardware pieces. The appellant originally sued both Liberty and Gore under the provisions of Code Ann. § 105-106 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1166, 1167) and for negligence. She subsequently amended her complaint to include counts of fraud and breach of warranty by Liberty. Motions for summary judgment made by both appellees were granted. We reverse both grants of summary judgment.

1. Although we must reverse the grant of summary judgment below in favor of appellee Liberty, several of the grounds upon which the plaintiff-appellant based her case were properly dismissed.

Because there is absolutely no evidence that Liberty manufactured the swing, Liberty would not be strictly liable to the appellant under the provisions of Code Ann. § 105-106, supra. Ellis v. Rich's, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 212 S.E.2d 373 (1975).

2. Nor, under the affidavits presented for summary judgment, is appellee Liberty liable for negligently permitting defective equipment to be sold to the appellant, as alleged in her complaint. "It is the general rule that a vendor or dealer who is not the manufacturer is under no obligation to test an article purchased and sold by him for the purpose of discovering latent or concealed defects, but that when he purchases and sells an article in common and general use, in the usual course of trade, without knowledge of its dangerous quality, and with nothing tending reasonably to call his attention thereto, he is not negligent in failing to exercise care to determine whether it is dangerous or not. In such a case he may assume that the manufacturer has done his duty in properly constructing the article and in not placing upon the market a commodity which is defective and likely to inflict injury." King Hardware Co. v. Ennis, 39 Ga.App. 355, 360, 147 S.E. 119, 121 (1928); see Lowe v. American Machine etc. Co., 132 Ga.App. 572(1)(a),208 S.E.2d 585 (1974).

3. However, the appellant has stated sufficient grounds for a finding that appellee Liberty is liable for a breach of warranty. There is evidence of a defect in the swing which rendered it unfit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. Thus Liberty may be held liable under the Uniform Commercial Code's implied warranty of merchantability. Code Ann. § 109A-2 314 (Ga.L. 1962, pp. 156, 189).

All of the post-U.C.C. authority that we have studied indicates that the implied warranty of merchantability does not base any distinctions upon whether or not goods are sold in their original packages. See, e. g., R. Anderson, 1 Uniform Commercial Code §§ 2-314: 70-72 (2d ed. 1970); G. Kock, Georgia Commercial Practice 40-41 (1964); White, "Sales Warranties Under Georgia's Uniform Commercial Code," 1 Ga. State Bar J. 191, 196-97 (1964). The provision, in fact, establishes a concept for retailers similar to that employed in Code Ann. § 105-106, supra, by which manufacturers may be held strictly liable for defective products.

Prior to the enactment of the U.C.C., Georgia adhered to the "sealed container doctrine." See Wood v. Hub Motor Co., 110 Ga.App. 101(2), 137 S.E.2d 674 (1964); Maroney v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 72 Ga.App. 485, 34 S.E.2d 302 (1945); Bel v. Adler, 63 Ga.App. 473(2), 11 S.E.2d 495 (1940). According to that doctrine, no warranty of merchantability applied as to the retailer of goods in their original packages, manufactured by reputable manufacturers, and in general use in the retail trade. In Wood v. Hub Motor Co., supra, however, it was specifically noted that this line of decisions was based on Code § 96-301, which was repealed with the advent of the U.C.C. in Georgia.

Since the adoption of the U.C.C., several Georgia cases have applied the implied warranty of merchantability to retailers of goods sold in sealed packages. In Fender v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 138 Ga.App. 31(1)(A), 225 S.E.2d 691 (1976), the plaintiff took a six-pack carton of Coca-Cola from a shelf in the supermarket. She then proceeded to the check-out counter, and placed the carton upon the counter, at which time a bottle exploded and injured her. She sued the supermarket and suffered a directed verdict. This court held, on p. 35, 225 S.E.2d p. 695, "that Coca-Cola bottles which would break under normal handling are not fit for the ordinary use for which they were intended . . ." and thus there was a prima facie showing by the plaintiff of a claim under the U.C.C.'s implied warranty of merchantability. The case was remanded for a jury trial.

Chaffin v. Atlanta Coca Cola etc. Co., 127 Ga.App. 619(1), 194 S.E.2d 513 (1972), also deals with a bottled soft drink which was not merchantable. In this case the plaintiff's daughter purchased a Coke from a vending machine at a Big Apple grocery store. The plaintiff was injured while drinking an impure substance which was contained in the bottle. The plaintiff sued the grocery store on several grounds, including that of breach of the U.C.C. implied warranty of merchantability. The judge refused to charge the jury as to the implied warranty, and the jury found against the plaintiff. This court held that the trial court erred in its refusal to charge.

Numerous other cases from this court, while not dealing specifically with goods sold in original containers, have used a strict liability approach to hold retailers liable for damage, suffered due to a breach of the U.C.C. implied warranty of merchantability. Redfern Meats v. Hertz, 134 Ga.App. 381, 215 S.E.2d 10 (1975) (improperly operating truck); Ray v. Deas, 112 Ga.App. 191, 144 S.E.2d 468 (1965) (foreign substance in hamburger).

Ellis v. Rich's, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 212 S.E.2d 373 (1975), would appear at first glance to hold that the sealed-container doctrine still applies. In Ellis, the buyer purchased a fondue pot from Rich's and gave it as a Christmas gift to Mrs. Ellis. When the pot broke, injuring Mrs. Ellis, she sued Rich's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • McDonald v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., A04A1411.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 10, 2004
    ...John Deere Co. v. Lindsey Landclearing Co., 122 Ga.App. 827, 831(2), 178 S.E.2d 917 (1970); accord Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., 141 Ga.App. 175, 176(3), 233 S.E.2d 33 (1977) (superceded by statute). The purpose of warranty statutes is "that the enterprise which causes losses should lift......
  • Perton v. Motel Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 1998
    ...John Deere Co. v. Lindsey Landclearing Co., 122 Ga.App. 827, 831(2), 178 S.E.2d 917 (1970); see also Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., 141 Ga.App. 175, 177(3), 233 S.E.2d 33 (1977). 1 While the statute imposes warranties that arise out of such legal relationship of bailor-bailee, the bailee ......
  • Sparks v. Total Body
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 17, 2009
    ...of the defense.5 The treatment of this identical issue in Georgia is especially instructive. In Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., 141 Ga. App. 175, 176, 233 S.E.2d 33, 35 (1977), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alltrade, Inc. v. McDonald, 213 Ga.App. 758, 445 S.E.2d 856 (......
  • Ream Tool Co. v. Newton
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1993
    ...thereto, it was not negligent in failing to exercise care to determine whether the cutter was dangerous. Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co., 141 Ga.App. 175, 175-176, 233 S.E.2d 33. Accordingly, RTC could assume the manufacturer of the cutter had done its duty in properly constructing the arti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT