 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BISHOP v. FARHAT6/17/1997
July 1992, at a time before she became "sensitized" to latex, its product could not have caused her injury. However, Bishop's expert, Dr. Sullivan, testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Bishop's use of Ansell's gloves "contributed to sensitization to latex." Expert testimony can sometimes prevent summary judgment. Bob v. Hardy, 222 Ga. App. 550, 555 (6) (474 S.E.2d 658) (1996). Here, although other products may have caused Bishop to become sensitive, the evidence does not exclude the inference that Ansell's product was a contributing cause. See Deans v. Dain Mgmt., 201 Ga. App. 466, 468-469 (1) (411 S.E.2d 354) (1991). Although Ansell points to these other potential causes of Bishop's injury, a jury question remains concerning which of the latex sources caused the injury. See Atlanta Obstetrics &c; Group v. Coleman, 260 Ga. 569, 570 (398 S.E.2d 16) (1990). In the cases Ansell cites, the plaintiffs showed no evidence that they had ever been exposed to a product made by the defendant. See Blackston v. Shook &c; Insulation Co., 764 F.2d 1480, 1482-1483 (11th Cir. 1985); Talley v. City Tank Corp., 158 Ga. App. 130, 134-135 (3) (279 S.E.2d 264) (1981). Here, the question is not exposure, but causation.
We disagree with Ansell's argument that Dr. Sullivan's affidavit is too "speculative" to create an issue of fact on the element of causation. Dr. Sullivan testified to his expertise and stated that, based upon Bishop's descriptions of her use of the gloves and her prior reactions to the gloves, it was his opinion that Ansell's gloves contributed to her condition. The expert's lack of knowledge as to the exact latex content of Ansell's gloves and Bishop's exposure to other latex-containing products go to the weight and credibility of his testimony but do not give the court reason to exclude the testimony completely. See, Orkin Exterminating Co. v. McIntosh, 215 Ga. App. 587, 591-593 (4) (452 S.E.2d 159) (1994); Jones v. Ray, 159 Ga. App. 734, 736 (4) (285 S.E.2d 42) (1981).
5. In its second enumeration of error, Ansell adopts Baxter's argument regarding the statute of limitations defense. This enumeration is without merit for the reasons discussed in Division 3, supra.
Case No. A97A1116: Delta's Appeal
6. Delta was the distributor of nonpowdered, "hypoallergenic" gloves which Bishop allegedly wore after July 1992. It asserts error in the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. Delta argues that because it had no knowledge of any dangers of latex allergy, it had no duty to warn Bishop. As a distributor, Delta could be held liable for negligent failure to warn only if, at the time of the sale, it had "actual or constructive knowledge" that its product created a danger for the consumer. See Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 192 Ga. App. 778, 780 (2) (b) (386 S.E.2d 696) (1989); Beam v. Omark Indus., 143 Ga. App. 142, 145 (1) (b) (237 S.E.2d 607) (1977). The seller is required to warn if he "`has knowledge, or by the application of reasonable, developed human skill and foresight should have knowledge' of the danger[.] [Cit.]" Chrysler Corp. v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723, 724 (1) (450 S.E.2d 208) (1994).
Although Delta may have had no actual knowledge of the dangers of latex allergy prior to March 1993, the record indicates the company had received complaints that its competitors' powdered latex gloves caused itching and chafing of wearers' hands. As Delta's president testified, before February 1993, he (much like Bishop) assumed the powder in his competitors' gloves caused this problem. Bishop's expert testified, however, that latex allergy has been documented in medical literature and "universally recognized by experts in this
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|