Wilson v. J L Melton, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Cash v. LG Elecs., Inc.

    804 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Finding summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate on the claims for breach of implied warranty and express warranty because plaintiff failed to offer admissible expert testimony regarding causation

    In light of our conclusion in Division 1 that the trial court properly excluded the expert testimony, Cash had no evidence to establish her claims that the television was the cause in fact or source of the fire, and her claims against LG necessarily fail. See Fletcher v. Water Applications Distrib. Group, Inc. , 333 Ga. App. 693, 696, 773 S.E.2d 859 (2015), cert. denied, 300 Ga. 327 (2016), reversed in part on other grounds, Certainteed Corp. v. Fletcher , 300 Ga. 327, 794 S.E.2d 641 (2016) (causation is element of negligence claim); Foothills Pharmacies, Inc. v. Powers , 313 Ga. App. 630, 632 (2), 722 S.E.2d 331 (2012) (absent evidence of causation, plaintiff could not establish claim for breach of express warranty claim); Boswell v. Overhead Door Corp. , 292 Ga. App. 234, 235, 664 S.E.2d 262 (2008) (plaintiff must prove causation to succeed on strict liability theory); Wilson v. J & L Melton, In c . , 270 Ga. App. 1, 3 (1), n. 1 (c), 606 S.E.2d 47 (2004) (to prove a claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability the plaintiff must prove causation). Thus, in the absence of any evidence of causation, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to LG on these claims.

  2. Pinney v. Nokia, Inc.

    402 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2005)   Cited 345 times
    Holding that plaintiffs had waived the issue of remand by failing to raise it with the JPML or the district court

    A product is not of merchantable quality when it is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used. See Wilson v. J L Melton, Inc., 270 Ga.App. 1, 606 S.E.2d 47, 49 n. 1 (2004); Ford Motor Co. v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co., 365 Md. 321, 779 A.2d 362, 370 n. 13 (2001); Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250, 662 N.E.2d 730, 736 (1995); Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 852 A.2d 365, 370-71 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2004). In determining whether a product is of merchantable quality, the fact-finder focuses on the "expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual, and reasonably foreseeable manners."

  3. Rose v. Ferrari N. Am., Inc.

    Civil Action 21-20772(JKS)(CLW) (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    , a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) that the goods were subject to the warranty; (2) that the goods were defective; (3) that the injury was caused by the defective goods; and (4) that damages were incurred as a result.'” Green v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 19-3242, 2020 WL 4577713, at *5 (N.D.Ga. May 1, 2020) (quoting Wilson v. J & L Melton, Inc., 606 S.E.2d 47, 49 n.1 (2004)).

  4. Johns v. Am. Med. Sys.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00598 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 17, 2020)

    Additionally, claims for breach of implied warranty and express warranty require evidence of proximate cause. Cash v. LG Elecs., Inc., 804 S.E.2d 713, 718 (Ga. App. 2017) (finding summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate on the claims for breach of implied warranty and express warranty because plaintiff failed to offer admissible expert testimony regarding causation); see also Foothills Pharmacies, Inc. v. Powers, 722 S.E.2d 331 (Ga. App. 2012) (finding that absent evidence of causation, plaintiff could not establish claim for breach of express warranty claim); Wilson v. J & L Melton, Inc., 606 S.E.2d 47, 49, n.1 (Ga. App. 2004) (holding that to prove a claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability the plaintiff must prove causation). Proximate cause is also required as an element of fraud.

  5. Atlas Roofing Corp. v. Atlas Roofing Corp.

    MDL DOCKET NO. 2495 (N.D. Ga. Jun. 8, 2017)

    Whitehead v. John Bleakley RV Center, Inc., 1:09-cv-468-TWT, 2010 WL 925091, at *5 (N.D. Ga. March 8, 2010). Stroup v. Castellucis, 163 Ga. App. 113 (1982); see also Wilson v. J & L Melton, Inc., 270 Ga. App. 1, 3 n.1 (2004). Here, the Court finds that - even if the Plaintiffs could prove a uniform defect - individual issues going to causation, notice, coverage, and statute of limitations predominate over any common questions in this case.