Weatherby v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. A89A2056,A89A2056
• Citation: 393 S.E.2d 64,195 Ga.App. 169
• Parties: , 12 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 674, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,508 WEATHERBY, et al. v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 64

393 S.E.2d 64

195 Ga.App. 169, 12 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 674,

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,508

WEATHERBY, et al. v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., et al.

No. A89A2056.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 16, 1990.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1990.

Certiorari Denied June 21, 1990.

Robert K. Finnell, Ellerin & Williams, Irwin M. Ellerin, Denise A. Hinds, Atlanta, for appellants.

King & Spalding, Lanny B. Bridgers, Sally C. Quillian, Steven J. Estep, Atlanta, for appellees.

David W. Boone, Atlanta, amicus curiae.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

This is a product liability case involving a Honda Model Z50R. This scaled-down off-road motorcycle had been purchased by Jerry Weatherby for the enjoyment of his family. On March 14, 1984, defendant Edwards, a friend and houseguest of the Weatherbys, gave five-year-old plaintiff Randy Weatherby a ride on the Honda. Defendant Edwards knew that there was no cap on the gasoline tank of the Honda. During the ride over uneven terrain gasoline splashed from the open tank and was ignited, causing severe burns to plaintiff Randy Weatherby.

Plaintiff Randy Weatherby proceeding by next friend, his mother Ivy Weatherby, along with plaintiffs Ivy Weatherby and Jerry Weatherby, individually, filed this action for damages against defendant Edwards, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Honda Research and Development Company, Ltd., and Honda Motor Company, Ltd. The action against Honda Research and Development Company, Ltd., was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation that the remaining two Honda corporations (hereafter "the Honda defendants") will assume the responsibility and liability, if any, of Honda Research and Development Company, Ltd.

The complaint alleges that the injury to plaintiff Randy Weatherby occurred due to the negligence of defendant Edwards and because the Honda motorcycle was negligently designed, manufactured, and distributed, and was unreasonably dangerous due to a defective design. The action against the Honda defendants which was couched in terms of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty is based on the absence of any device attaching the cap to the gasoline tank so as to remind a person to put it in place prior to operation; the absence of a safety device covering the spark plug which would prevent any contact with flammable objects; the absence of a device or foam lining which would prevent fuel spillage in the event the gas cap is not on the tank; and inadequate warnings of the defective nature of the motorcycle.

The Honda defendants moved for summary judgment relying upon the "open and obvious rule" (also known as the "patent danger rule"), that is, that a product is not defective if the absence of a safety device is open and obvious, and there is no duty to warn of an obvious danger. The absence of a device connecting the gas cap to the tank, and the danger attendant to riding a motor bike with an uncapped gas tank could not be more open and obvious, argued the Honda defendants. Plaintiffs appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Honda defendants. Held:

On appeal, the Honda defendants continue to rely upon the "open and obvious" rule. Plaintiffs present several arguments in support of their contention that this rule is inapplicable, and argue that this case is controlled by our recent decision in Ogletree v. Navistar Intl., etc., Corp., 194 Ga.App. 41, 390 S.E.2d 61 (1989).

Plaintiffs' reliance on Ogletree v. Navistar Intl., 194 Ga.App. 41, 390 S.E.2d 61, supra, has compelled our review of the facts and law of that case. We have found that while the facts in Ogletree and the present case are similar, we are unable to follow Ogletree since it is predicated upon significant errors of law. It appears that we have inadvertently strayed from our settled adherence to the "open and obvious rule," perhaps to the point of seemingly abandoning that principle. While the "open and obvious rule" has been the subject of considerable criticism and has been abandoned in some other jurisdictions, including New York where it originated, it continues to be the law in Georgia. Stodghill v. Fiat-Allis Constr., etc., 163 Ga.App. 811, 813, 295 S.E.2d 183. Therefore, insofar as it fails to correctly apply the "open and obvious rule," Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Corp., supra, must be overruled.

"In a products liability case predicated on negligence, the duty imposed is the traditional one of reasonable care and the manufacturer need not provide, from a design standpoint, a product incapable of producing injury. Greenway v. Peabody Intl. Corp., 163 Ga.App. 698, 699(1) (294 SE2d 541) (1982). Georgia law does not require a manufacturer to occupy the status of an insurer with respect to product design, Hunt v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 147 Ga. [App.] 44, 46(4) (248 SE2d 15) (1978), or to provide a collision safe vehicle. Friend v. Gen. Motors Corp., 118 Ga.App. 763, 764(2) (165 SE2d 734) (1968). The manufacturer is under no obligation to make a machine 'accident proof or foolproof,' Fortner v. W.C. Cayne Co., 184 Ga.App. 187, 190(2) (360 SE2d 920) (1987), and Poppell v. Waters, 126 Ga.App. 385, 387(1) (190 SE2d 815) (1972), or even 'more safe.' Stovall & Co. v. Tate, 124 Ga.App. 605, 611(1) (184 SE2d 834) (1971). The public policy enunciated by the legislature is a predominant factor in our determination. Rhodes v. R.G. Indus., 173 Ga.App. 51, 52(1) (325 SE2d 465) (1984).

"Here the vehicle is not alleged to be defective in the operational sense but in that it did not contain what the plaintiffs contend to be the best or more advanced safety device. The instant situation is inapposite to Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga.App. 331 (319 SE2d 470) (1984), which involved a defective injury-causing component rather than the absence of a superior safety device. If a 'product is designed so that it is reasonably safe for the use intended, the product is not defective even though capable of producing injury where the injury results from an obvious or patent peril.' Coast Catamaran Corp. v. Mann, 171 Ga.App. 844, 847(2) (321 SE2d 353) (1984) (affirmed Mann v. Coast Catamaran Corp., 254 Ga. 201 (326 SE2d 436) (1985)), where it was observed that with regards [to] a product-design case 'only semantics distinguishes' between a cause of action for negligence and liability under OCGA § 51-1-11. See Griffin v. Crown Central Petroleum Co., 171 Ga.App. 534 (320 SE2d 383) (1984)." Honda Motor Co. v. Kimbrel, 189 Ga.App. 414, 418, 376 S.E.2d 379 (1988).

Care should be taken to distinguish between the "open and obvious rule" and the affirmative defenses of contributory and comparative negligence and assumption of the risk. Although the rationale of the "open and obvious rule" is similar to that of these affirmative defenses, there are important substantive distinctions between them. In determining, under the "open and obvious rule," whether the peril from which an injury results is latent or patent, the decision is made on the basis of an objective view of the product, and the subjective perceptions of the user or injured party are irrelevant. See 35 ALR4th 861; 96 ALR3rd 22; 95 ALR3rd 1066; 63 AmJur2d Products Liability §§ 342; 369; 378; 932; and 936; and Darling, The Patent Danger Rule: An Analysis & A Survey of Its Vitality, 29 Mercer L.Rev. 683 (1978).

While the "open and obvious rule" imposes on a plaintiff the burden of proving that the peril-causing injury is latent, or not patent, the affirmative defenses of contributory and comparative negligence and assumption of the risk require a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances or that plaintiff knowingly encountered a known danger with appreciation thereof. Thus, jury questions are often presented as to whether the affirmative defenses have been established.

It is not uncommon for issues concerning both the "open and obvious rule" and the similar affirmative defenses to arise in the same case. Both have been discussed in several Georgia cases and unfortunately, care has not been taken in all instances to separate or otherwise clearly distinguish which portion of a decision relates to a given principle.

Thus, we were led, in Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Corp., supra, to erroneously view the absence of evidence pertaining to the subjective perceptions of that plaintiff's decedent as relevant to our analysis concerning the applicability of the "open and obvious rule." Actual knowledge by the user of the danger posed by a product is not necessary in order to invoke the "open and obvious rule." 63 AmJur2d Products Liability § 342; Poppell v. Waters, 126 Ga.App. 385, 388, 190 S.E.2d 815; Stodghill v. Fiat-Allis Constr. & c., 163 Ga.App. 811, 295 S.E.2d 183, supra. In Ogletree, we should have directed our attention to whether an objective view of the truck disclosed that the absence of the back-up alarm was open and obvious, and as an affirmative conclusion was clearly warranted, we should not have reversed the grant of summary judgment to defendant Navistar International Transportation Corporation.

Furthermore, in regard to Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Corp., supra, we must also acknowledge that our reliance upon Verge v. Ford Motor Co., 581 F.2d 384 (3rd Cir.1978), was misplaced, particularly insofar as we drew therefrom a balancing analysis concerned with economic feasibility, technological feasibility, and practicality. Those jurisdictions which have abandoned or rejected the "open and obvious rule," have nonetheless generally chosen to consider the patency of a particular defect as a factor in determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. In those jurisdictions, factors such as those stated in Verge are considered along with patency to determine if a duty exists with respect to the patent defects. 35 ALR4th 861, 865 § 2(a); 95 ALR3rd 1066, 1070 § 2(a). The factors taken from Verge are not relevant to the application of the "open and obvious rule" which...