Mack Trucks v. Conkle

60 Citing cases

  1. Uniroyal Goodrich v. Ford

    218 Ga. App. 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    In Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, 218 Ga. App. 248 (461 S.E.2d 877) (1995), we reversed on various grounds a judgment in favor of Franklin Ford III (Ford) for compensatory and punitive damages and a judgment in favor of Ford's parents for compensatory damages.

    "The clearly stated purpose of [OCGA § 51-12-5.1] is to punish and deter the defendant in a tort action." Mack Trucks v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 542 ( 436 S.E.2d 635) (1993). Subsections (e) (1) and (2) of the statute carry out this purpose with respect to the imposition of punitive damages in product liability actions and provide in general that, although there is no ceiling on the award of punitive damages, there may be only one such award against a defendant for any act or omission regardless of the number of causes of action that may arise from such act or omission and that 75 percent of any such award will be paid into the state treasury.

  2. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. v. Crosby

    273 Ga. 454 (Ga. 2001)   Cited 44 times
    In Cooper Tire and Rubber Company v. Crosby, 273 Ga. App. 454 (543 S.E.2d 21)(2001), The Supreme Court found that this Court erred in Crosby v. Cooper Tire Rubber Co., 240 Ga. App 857 in ruling that the trial court was required to admit evidence of consumer claims honored by the tire manufacturer for tires manufactured at the tire plant where the tire involved in this action was manufactured.

    Before admitting proffered evidence of other transactions in products liability cases, the trial court must satisfy itself that the rule of substantial similarity has been met. Thus, in Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, the Court of Appeals has recently held that it was reversible error to admit tire adjustment data in a products liability case without a "showing of similarity of the tires, defects or the causes thereof."Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 544 ( 436 S.E.2d 635) (1993); Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Daniel, 244 Ga. 284, 287 ( 260 S.E.2d 20) (1973).Mack Trucks, 263 Ga. at 544.

  3. Hamby v. DaimlerChrysler

    Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-0937-CAP (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2005)

    Hamby agrees there is no federal cause of action, but she argues such a claim is recognized under Georgia law. In making her argument, Hamby relies heavily upon Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 545, 436 S.E.2d 635, 640 (1993). In Conkle, the plaintiff was injured after the tractor trailer truck he was driving overturned when its right frame rail broke.

  4. Cisson v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00195 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    Four cases have spoken on the constitutionality of § 51-12-5.1(e)(2). See McBride v. Gen. Motors Corp., 737 F. Supp. 1563 (M.D. Ga. 1990); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 436 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. 1993); State v. Moseley, 436 S.E.2d 632 (Ga. 1993); Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 476 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. 1996). Out of the four, only the earliest, McBride, struck down the statute as unconstitutional.

  5. Ford Motor v. Reese

    300 Ga. App. 82 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming admission of evidence of other similar incidents involving unspecified Ford vehicles with seatbacks of "the same design as the [Ford] Tempo seatback at issue here"

    In the absence of a legally cognizable duty, there can be no fault or negligence. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Clemente, 294 Ga. App. 38, 58 (13) ( 668 SE2d 737) (2008). As an initial matter, we reject the plaintiffs' contention that the question of whether a manufacturer has a duty to recall a product was resolved by Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 540-541 (1) ( 436 SE2d 635) (1993), and Smith v. Ontario Sewing Machine Co., 249 Ga. App. 364, 368 (b) ( 548 SE2d 89) (2001). Although the plaintiffs in Mack Trucks, Inc. had brought a claim "for negligent failure to recall or warn," 263 Ga. at 539, there was no challenge or ruling on appeal as to the validity of that claim.

  6. Woodard v. Ford Motor Company

    CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:06-CV-2191-TWT (N.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2007)   Cited 2 times

    In fact, the Defendant's alleged conduct is enough to sustain punitive damages. Under Georgia law, any automobile manufacturer placing profit over safety risks punitive damages liability. See, e.g., Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539 (1993); General Motors Corp. v.Moseley, 213 Ga. App. 875, 885 (1994) (reversed on other grounds). In Mack Trucks, the defendant chose not to reinforce frames on trucks — at a cost of $103 — despite pleas from the defendant's engineering department to do so.

  7. Taylor v. The Devereux Found.

    316 Ga. 44 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 10 times
    Declining to follow earlier decision where later decision that conflicted properly recited and applied a "bedrock principle"

    Nestlehutt , 286 Ga. at 737, 691 S.E.2d 218. See also, e.g., Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle , 263 Ga. 539, 543, 436 S.E.2d 635 (1993) ("We have previously held that the legislature may lawfully circumscribe punitive damages in this circumstance."). We have even made clear that "the General Assembly properly can enact legislation that departs from the common law.

  8. Barger v. Garden Way

    231 Ga. App. 723 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 21 times
    Finding no error in charge when substance of requests was thoroughly and accurately stated in product liability case

    "In product liability actions, evidence of other incidents involving the product is admissible, and relevant to the issues of notice of a defect and punitive damages, provided there is a showing of substantial similarity. Mack Trucks v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539 ( 436 S.E.2d 635) (1993). `Without a showing of substantial similarity, the evidence is irrelevant as a matter of law [and there is nothing upon which the court's discretion can operate].

  9. In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Litig.

    MDL Docket No. 2004, 4:08-MD-2004 (CDL), Case Nos. 3:07-cv-00101 (Stafford et al.), 3:07-cv-00102 (Booth et al.), 3:07-cv-00130 (Dover et al.) (M.D. Ga. May. 18, 2010)

    Moreover, the alleged fact that Mentor has exhibited punitive conduct toward multiple plaintiffs will not unfairly inflate the punitive award given that other similar conduct evidence would be admissible on the issue of punitive damages even if those other victims are not named parties. Curiously, Mentor cites to Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 542, 436 S.E.2d 635, 638 (1993) in support of its argument, yet the facts of that case appear directly contrary to Mentor's position. A careful reading of Mack Trucks indicates that punitive damages were awarded against a truck manufacturer when a husband and wife brought a product liability action against the manufacturer, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the $2 million punitive damages award. Id. at 539, 545; 436 S.E.2d at 636, 640.

  10. Reid v. Morris

    309 Ga. 230 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 8 times
    Disagreeing with Court of Appeals' interpretation of punitive damages statute

    McClure , 259 Ga. at 682 & n.7, 385 S.E.2d 271 (some footnotes, paragraph breaks, and punctuation omitted). Four years later, in Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle , 263 Ga. 539, 436 S.E.2d 635 (1993), we elaborated on the statute's "three-tiered" structure for punitive damages awards: It can be seen that subsections (e), (f) and (g) constitute a consistent statutory scheme for the regulation of punitive damages.