Legal Opinion

Moody v. Martin Motor Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 13, 1948No. 31811PublishedCited by 44 opinions

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

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Young v. Smith & Kelly Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  3. Simmons Company v. HardinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
  4. Davey v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. 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
  2. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  3. Sims v. American Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
  4. Ford Motor Co. v. StubblefieldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  5. Clay v. American Tobacco Co.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1999

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API