Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equipment Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a company was a product seller under Georgia law even where the company’s general manager served on the advisory board for the manufacturer’s design team
• finding that seller of forklift undertook safety investigation and discussed safety options with buyer, which could create a duty of reasonable care if there was detrimental reliance
• limiting the duty to warn under Section 324A in product liability cases to distributors and sellers of dangerous products who are aware that the manufacturer’s warnings are inadequate or misleading
• reversing summary judgment on the ground that seller of product who made investigations into product’s expected use assumed a duty of ordinary care to warn users of patent defect in product and whether seller breached that duty was a question for the jury
• reversing summary judgment on the ground that seller of product who made investigations into product’s expected use assumed a duty of ordinary care to warn users of patent defect in product and whether seller breached that duty was a question for the jury
• “Generally, there is no duty on the seller to warn the user or consumer of a patent defect or danger that the purchaser should recognize.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).