PPG Industries, Inc. v. Genson
| Decision Date | 25 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | 50839,No. 1,Nos. 50838,s. 50838,1 |
| Citation | 217 S.E.2d 479,135 Ga.App. 248 |
| Parties | , 17 UCC Rep.Serv. 785 PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Jan V. GENSON, by n/f, et al. CHARLES H. HARDIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Jan V. GENSON, by n/f, et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Jerry B. Blackstock, John D. Lowery, Atlanta, for PPG Industries, Inc.
Henning, Chambers & Mabry, Walter B. McClelland, E. Speer Mabry, III, Atlanta, for Charles H. Hardin Const. Co.
John, E. Dougherty, Ben L. Weinberg, Jr., David A. Handley, Walter B. McClelland, F. Clay Bush, Atlanta, for appellees.
This is an action brought by Earl Genson, individually and as administrator of the estate of Jan Genson, his deceased minor son, against The Varsity, Inc., seeking to recover for various items of damage resulting from the death of Jan. Plaintiff alleged that on February 14, 1970, while an invitee on the overhead bridge on the Varsity's premises in Atlanta, Jan 'was pushed shoved, knocked and thrown against a glass wall which gave way, causing him to fall from the upper parking level onto the ground level approximately 18 feet below.' It was alleged that the Varsity was negligent, inter alia, 'in failing to provide and maintain a wall of sufficient strength to support the weight of the plaintiff without breaking or giving way,' and 'in failing to install and maintain a protective guard railing, properly located and of sufficient strength.'
The Varsity moved for summary judgment, which was granted; and in a prior appeal we reversed, holding that it had failed to carry its summary judgment burden. Genson v. The Varsity, Inc., 129 Ga.App. 721, 201 S.E.2d 156 (cert. den.). For another glass case, see Moody v. Southland Investment Corp., 126 Ga.App. 225, 190 S.E.2d 578. Meanwhile the Varsity filed its third party complaint against Jules Gray, the architect for the overhead bridge; William E. Edwards Structural Engineers, Inc.; Charles H. Hardin Construction Company, the general contractor; and PPG Industries, Inc., the glass subcontractor. It was alleged that Hardin was negligent in the construction of the overhead bridge and in failing to supervise and inspect its construction. PPG was alleged to be negligent in the installation of the glass walls, and it was also asserted that it had breached an implied warrant of merchantability as to the glass used. Uniform Commercial Code § 109A-2-314. Various parties also asserted cross-claims against various other parties, each contending that the rest were liable over to the cross-claimant.
Hardin and PPG moved for summary judgment, which was denied in a single order; and that ruling is before us via certificate for immediate review. The record shows that the Varsity, pursuant to written contract, hired Hardin to perform the construction of the overhead bridge addition in accordance with the plans and instructions of the architect, who had been hired by the Varsity. Hardin in turn hired PPG, as subcontractor, to furnish the necessary labor, material and equipment for a complete glazing and aluminum covering installation, all according to plans prepared by the architect. The selection of PPG by Hardin met with the approval of the Varsity and the architect.
The plans of the architect, while providing for the dimensions of the glass panels, did not provide particular specifications for the type (i.e., safety vs. non-safety) and thickness of glass. These specifications appeared on the 'shop drawings' prepared by PPG, which were submitted to Hardin and in turn to the architect for approval. These drawings, which did not specify safety glass, were approved by the architect on behalf of the Varsity; and thereafter the work was performed in strict compliance with the drawings, with industry standards, and with the building code requirements of the City of Atlanta, which at that time did not require safety glass. After completion the bridge was approved and accepted by the architect and the Varsity, which included the glass and its installation; and final payment was made to Hardin by the Varsity, which was completely satisfied with the work.
1. The applicable statute of limitation on the contract claim against PPG is four years, which began to run when the alleged breach occurred. Uniform Commercial Code § 109A-2-725. The breach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Washington Refrigeration, Inc. v. Barbee
...is a contribution action under RCW 4.22.040" based in small part on breach of warranty. Br. of Appellant at 7. PPG Indus., Inc. v. Genson, 135 Ga.App. 248, 217 S.E.2d 479 (1975) similarly lacks any discussion of indemnity. The case cited from Iowa, Kitzinger v. Wesley Lumber Co., 419 N.W.2d......
-
Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. v. Widner
...277 S.E.2d 312 (1981); Wilner's, Inc. v. Fine, 153 Ga.App. 591, 592-593(1), 266 S.E.2d 278 (1980); PPG Indus. v. Genson, 135 Ga.App. 248, 250-251(2), 217 S.E.2d 479 (1975); Peachtree North Apts. Co. v. Huffman-Wolfe Co., 126 Ga.App. 594, 191 S.E.2d 485 (1972); Queen v. Craven, 95 Ga.App. 17......
-
Ameron, Inc. v. Chemische Werke Huls AG
...of limitations provided in U.C.C. section 2-725 are Georgia, Utah, Illinois, Idaho and Washington. See P.P.G. Industries, Inc. v. Genson, 135 Ga.App. 248, 217 S.E.2d 479 (1979); Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co., 681 P.2d 214 (Utah 1984); Anixter Bros., Inc. v. Central Steel & Wire, 123......
-
Sheehan v. Morris Irr., Inc., s. 16482
...be barred by Uniform Commercial Code Sec. 2-725 (U.C.C. Sec. 2-725) in Georgia, Utah, Illinois and Idaho. See PPG Industries, Inc. v. Genson, 135 Ga.App. 248, 217 S.E.2d 479 (1975); Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co., 681 P.2d 214 (Utah 1984); Anixter Bros., Inc. v. Central Steel & Wire,......