Robert F. Bullock, Inc. v. Thorpe
| Decision Date | 04 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 43800,43800 |
| Citation | 256 Ga. 744,353 S.E.2d 340 |
| Parties | , 55 USLW 2552, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,319 ROBERT F. BULLOCK, INC., v. THORPE, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Alfred B. Adams, III, Wildman, Harrold, Allen, Dixon & Branch, Atlanta, for Robert F. Bullock, Inc.
Theron D. Warren III, Popkin, Lennard, Warren & Thompson, Marietta, John F. Davis, Jr., Davis & Ormand, Atlanta, for Clifford Gene Thorpe et al.
We granted certiorari in this case to review the question of whether a manufacturer can be liable under OCGA § 51-1-11 when a new product is placed in the hands of another for a try-out period prior to any actual sale. Although the Georgia statute uses the term "sold" when defining liability under strict liability for a "manufacturer of any personal property sold as new ...", the Court of Appeals held that in order to effectuate the purpose of the statute, "sold" would be construed to mean "placed in the stream of commerce." Thorpe v. Robert F. Bullock, Inc., 179 Ga.App. 867, 348 S.E.2d 55 (1986). We affirm.
To briefly restate the facts, Thorpe, an employee of Bennigan's Restaurant, was burned from boiling oil from a deep fat fryer manufactured by Robert F. Bullock, Inc. Bennigan's had not purchased the fryer, but Bullock had placed the fryer in their kitchen on a trial basis in hopes that a sale would be consummated.
In defining the scope of strict liability in tort the Georgia legislature uses the word "sold." OCGA § 51-1-11. The issue is whether the term is merely descriptive of the type of transactions to be covered as urged by Mr. Thorpe, or is a limitation of the types of commercial transactions to be covered by the statute as contended by the manufacturer.
The petitioner correctly argues that Georgia's strict liability doctrine is legislatively enacted and, we have said it will be strictly construed. See Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 Ga. 657, 238 S.E.2d 361 (1977). However, we find that the application of the statute to the fact situation before us does not impermissibly enlarge on the policy set by the legislature. As stated and cited in Ellis v. Rich's, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 212 S.E.2d 373 (1975), the doctrine of strict liability puts a burden on the manufacturer who markets a new product to take responsibility for injury to members of the consuming public for whose use and/or consumption the product is made. In those states which recognize the doctrine of strict liability in tort, the vast...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perton v. Motel Properties, Inc.
...with the hope of ultimate sale, such was held to be subject to strict liability under OCGA § 51-1-11. Robert F. Bullock, Inc. v. Thorpe, 256 Ga. 744, 745, 353 S.E.2d 340 (1987). Strict liability does arise from a rental or lease agreement in a fashion similar to a sale. Redfern Meats v. Her......
-
S K Hand Tool Corp. v. Lowman
...for injury to members of the consuming public for whose use and/or consumption the product is made." Robert F. Bullock, Inc. v. Thorpe, 256 Ga. 744, 745, 353 S.E.2d 340 (1987). See also Alexander v. General Motors Corp., 219 Ga.App. 660, 662, 466 S.E.2d 607 (1995). A claim of strict liabili......
-
Alexander v. General Motors Corp., A95A1400
...for injury to members of the consuming public for whose use and/or consumption the product is made." Robert F. Bullock, Inc. v. Thorpe, 256 Ga. 744, 745, 353 S.E.2d 340 (1987). Although Virginia has not adopted a strict liability theory in products liability cases (see Sensenbrenner v. Rust......
-
Smith v. Chemtura Corp.
...125 S.E.2d 682. 15. See Monroe v. Savannah Elec. etc., Power Co., 267 Ga. 26, 27(2), 471 S.E.2d 854 (1996); Robert F. Bullock, Inc. v. Thorpe, 256 Ga. 744, 745, 353 S.E.2d 340 (1987), aff. Thorpe v. Robert F. Bullock, Inc., 179 Ga.App. 867, 348 S.E.2d 55 16. See OCGA § 51-1-11. 17. Monroe, ......