Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equipment Co.

Material issues of fact remained as to the distributor's failure to advise the purchaser in 1994 of the availability of a safety device for a standup forklift and its failure to warn of the inherent danger in using the standup forklift without the safety device in close proximity with the use of other regular forklifts.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The Gregory Pool Equipment Company sold a forklift operated by a stand up operator to Ecolab to experiment with, because Ecolab had previously only used conventional forklifts. Robyn Embry, Ecolab’s employee, was using the standup forklift, while other employees were using regular forklifts in the same close work area in the Ecolab plant. When a parked forklift’s forks entered the operator’s compartment of the standup unit, the forks speared Embry’s leg, severing an artery and causing him to bleed to death. The trial court erroneously granted motions for summary judgment against the product liability/wrongful death and personal injury actions. We reverse in part and affirm in part. The contentions of the Plaintiff and Defendant sharply conflict; each point to conflicting direct and circumstantial evidence. Both want conflicting inferences drawn as the only reasonable inference. Weight and credibility of the evidence are to be drawn by the jury who resolve conflicts in evidence. The favorable inferences which must be drawn for the respondent and conflicts in the evidence as to material issues of fact as to issues of the deceased’s negligence or the negligence of Gregory Poole Equipment require a reversal of summary judgment on such issues. As to strict product liability, the evidence is not in dispute and the law is clear; summary judgment as to strict product liability must be affirmed.

On January 2, 1998, in operating the standup forklift without a rear guard-door, Embry’s forklift had contact with a parked forklift, which had its forks raised, causing the forks to enter the operator’s compartment; no one saw the accident so that circumstantial evidence must be utilized to determine how it occurred. Such evidence may raise jury issues as to Embry’s assumption of the risk, comparative negligence, and contributory negligence, but the evidence does not demand judgment as a matter of law. Vaughn v. Pleasent , 266 Ga. 862, 864 1 471 SE2d 866 1996 assumption of risk requires actual knowledge and subjective appreciation of the risk.

Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equipment Co.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report