Yaeger v. Stith Equipment Co.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 75208,75208 |
| Citation | 364 S.E.2d 48,185 Ga.App. 315 |
| Parties | YAEGER et al. v. STITH EQUIPMENT COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Frank E. Jenkins III, William L. Kidd, Ruth A. Zaleon, Atlanta, for appellants.
Hugh F. Newberry, Atlanta, for appellee.
The appellants, John and Patricia Yaeger, filed a products liability suit against Reedrill, Inc., Canadair, Ltd., and Stith Equipment Company (the appellee herein) seeking to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium which they allegedly suffered as the result of the defective design, manufacture, and assembly of a "Flextrac" all- terrain vehicle onto which the appellee had installed a "Texcoma" 254 auger before delivering it to Mr. Yaeger's employer. The complaint was predicated on negligence as well as strict liability. This is the second appearance of the case before this court. In Yaeger v. Stith Equip. Co., 177 Ga.App. 835, 341 S.E.2d 492 (1986), we reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellee, holding that the evidence of record did not preclude a finding that the appellee was a "manufacturer" within the contemplation of OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(1), and further holding that the alleged instability of the vehicle with the auger attached could not be considered an obvious and patent danger as a matter of law. Upon return of the case to the trial court, the appellee filed a second motion for summary judgment, based on the existing evidence of record and also on additional affidavits dealing with the issue of whether it had performed the role of a "manufacturer" within the contemplation of the statute. The trial court again granted summary judgment to the appellee based on these affidavits, and the appellants again appeal. Held:
Yaeger v. Stith Equip. Co., supra, 177 Ga.App. at 837, 341 S.E.2d 492. The additional affidavits submitted by the appellee establish without dispute that it did not sell either the Flextrac or the auger under its own trade name. Based on this additional evidence, the trial court correctly determined as a matter of law that the appellee was not a "manufacturer" of the equipment within the meaning of OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(1) and thus could not be held strictly liable for the performance. However, it does not follow that no material issue of fact remains to be tried in the case.
An examination of the record reflects that no additional evidence has been submitted by the appellee on the issue of whether its failure to warn of the vehicle's enhanced rollover potential with the auger attached would support a recovery based on negligence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogletree v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp.
...supra at 807, 476 S.E.2d 83. See MOM Corp. v. Chattahoochee Bank, 203 Ga.App. 847(1), 418 S.E.2d 74 (1992); Yaeger v. Stith Equip. Co., 185 Ga.App. 315, 316, 364 S.E.2d 48 (1987) (additional affidavits submitted in second motion for summary judgment showed indisputably defendant was not a m......
-
McLean v. Continental Wingate Co., Inc.
...apply to rulings made during an appellate court's reversal of a trial court's grant of summary judgment. See Yaeger v. Stith Equip. Co., 185 Ga.App. 315, 364 S.E.2d 48 (1987) (applying the law of the case to an issue about which no new evidence was presented on the renewed motion for summar......
-
Yaeger v. Canadair, Ltd.
...of this case are more fully set forth in Yaeger v. Stith Equip. Co., 177 Ga.App. 835, 341 S.E.2d 492 (1986) and Yaeger v. Stith Equip. Co., 185 Ga.App. 315, 364 S.E.2d 48 (1987). In this appeal, appellants contend the trial court erred by granting appellee's motion for summary judgment in t......
-
Atlanta Journal v. Long
...that cannot be reopened by the trial court absent a change in the evidentiary posture of the case, see, e.g., Yaeger v. Stith Equipment Co., 185 Ga.App. 315, 364 S.E.2d 48 (1987); Modern Roofing & Metal Works, Inc. v. Owen, 174 Ga.App. 875(1), 332 S.E.2d 14 This restriction on reopening app......