Simonds v. Conair Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 75635,75635 |
| Citation | 365 S.E.2d 507,185 Ga.App. 664 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,716 SIMONDS v. CONAIR CORPORATION. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William R. Hurst, Dunwoody, for appellant.
Lynn M. Roberson, for appellee.
John A. Simonds brought suit against Conair Corporation to recover damages for injuries suffered when he was burned by a hair dryer manufactured by Conair. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for Conair. Judgment was entered on the verdict and, following the trial court's denial of Simonds' motion for a new trial, he appeals.
The evidence disclosed that appellant was awaiting the arrival of his hair stylist at a hairdresser shop. Connie Finks, another stylist employed at the salon, shampooed appellant's hair as a courtesy to appellant's stylist and then left the premises, leaving only appellant and the receptionist in the shop. Shortly thereafter, when appellant's stylist had not arrived, appellant felt chilled and requested permission from the receptionist to dry his own hair. This was given, and appellant was told to use Finks' hair dryer. While appellant was blowing his hair dry with Finks' hair dryer, the dryer overheated, melting portions of the plastic casing and causing severe burns to appellant's hand. It is uncontroverted that appellant required hospitalization and surgery and incurred medical bills in excess of $8,000.
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial because the verdict was not supported by the evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. Githens v. Roberts, 174 Ga.App. 152, 154, 329 S.E.2d 219 (1985). In the case sub judice, the evidence was in conflict as to whether the dryer was defective from the time of manufacture, or whether it had been damaged or faultily repaired thereafter. Appellant's expert witness testified that in his opinion, the former was true. However, appellee's expert witness was of the opinion that the dryer had not been defective when manufactured, but had been damaged or improperly repaired subsequent to manufacture. He based this opinion on his analysis of the physical evidence--the dryer itself. Thus, despite Finks' testimony that to her knowledge, the dryer had not been opened or repaired prior to the accident, there was some competent evidence which the jury could have believed, and from which it could have concluded that appellee had not manufactured a defective dryer and was thus not responsible for appellant's injuries. " Rich v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 176 Ga.App. 663, 664, 337 S.E.2d 370 (1985). We find that the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the injury to appellant was not caused by the negligence of appellee, and thus the trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion for a new trial.
2. Appellant also asserts the trial court erred by requiring sequestration of his expert witness during the videotaped testimony of appellee's expert witness. We do not agree. OCGA § 24-9-61 gives either party the right to have the witnesses of the other party examined out of the hearing of each other. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bean v. Landers
..."the proper mode of examination is by hypothetical questions." Bartell, supra at 149(1), 351 S.E.2d 495; Simonds v. Conair Corp., 185 Ga.App. 664, 665(2), 365 S.E.2d 507 (1988). Excepting the expert from the rule is acceptable. Huskins v. State, 245 Ga. 541, 266 S.E.2d 163 (1980); Kendrick ......
-
Walter v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
...and (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.' " Simonds v. Conair Corp., 185 Ga.App. 664(3), 365 S.E.2d 507; Johnson v. Dallas Glass Co., 183 Ga.App. 584, 585, 359 S.E.2d 448. Further, "[t]he accident must also be 'of a kind which, ......
-
Giannotti v. Beleza Hair Salon, Inc.
...doctrine was inapplicable, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur. Simonds v. Conair Corp., 185 Ga.App. 664, 665(3), 365 S.E.2d 507 (1988). For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the trial court's judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Judgm......
-
Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. v. Green
...must consider whether the evidentiary rule of res ipsa loquitur may be used to create a jury question. See Simonds v. Conair Corp., 185 Ga.App. 664, 665(3), 365 S.E.2d 507 (1988); see also Jenkins v. Roper Corp., 185 Ga.App. 219, 220, 363 S.E.2d 625 (1987). " ' "The elements of the doctrine......