Moody v. Martin Motor Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.
Code § 105-106 provides: “No privity is necessary to support an action for a tort; but if the tort results from the violation of a duty, itself the consequence of a contract, the right of action is confined to the parties and privies to that contract, except in cases where the party would have had a right of action for the injury done, independently of the contract.” This is a codification of the common law. “It is the orthodox and traditional general rule that a manufacturer or packer of a defective article is not liable for injuries to the person or property of an ultimate consumer who has…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Young v. Smith & Kelly Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Simmons Company v. HardinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
- Davey v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
3Cited by44 opinions
- The Flintkote Company v. Dravo Corporation, Diamond Manufacturing Company, Inc. And B. F. Diamond Construction Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Orkin Exterminating Co. v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Sims v. American Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Ford Motor Co. v. StubblefieldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Clay v. American Tobacco Co.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1999
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.