Lexplug logoLexplug

Potts v. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
301 S.E.2d 903, 165 Ga. App. 546 (1983)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a statutory violation to constitute negligence per se, the injured party must be within the class of persons the statute was intended to protect, and the harm suffered must be the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent.


Facts:

  • The appellant was an employee of Colonial Stores.
  • In the course of his employment, he was unloading bananas from a truck.
  • The bananas were distributed by Fidelity Fruit and Produce Co., Inc., and transported by Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc.
  • While unloading the bananas, the appellant was bitten by a spider.
  • The appellant sustained personal injuries as a result of the spider bite.

Procedural Posture:

  • The appellant sued Fidelity Fruit and Produce Co., Inc., and Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. in a trial court for personal injuries.
  • The lawsuit initially claimed both ordinary negligence and negligence per se under the Georgia Food Act.
  • The appellant later conceded that the evidence did not support the ordinary negligence claim.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity Fruit and Produce Co., Inc. on the negligence per se claim.
  • The appellant appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Georgia Food Act, a consumer protection statute, provide a basis for a negligence per se claim for a worker injured by a spider bite while unloading food, where the injury is unrelated to the consumption of that food?


Opinions:

Majority - Banke, J.

No. The Georgia Food Act does not provide a basis for a negligence per se claim because the appellant, a worker, is not in the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and his injury was not the type of harm it was intended to prevent. The court applies a two-part test to determine if a statutory violation is negligence per se: (1) whether the injured person is in the class the statute intended to protect, and (2) whether the harm was what the statute intended to guard against. The court reasoned that the Georgia Food Act is clearly a consumer protection act, intended to prevent the sale of adulterated or misbranded food to consumers. It was not designed to make the workplace safer for employees handling the food. Since the appellant's injury was a workplace accident (a spider bite) and did not arise from his consumption of the bananas, his claim falls outside the statute's protective scope.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the specific application of the negligence per se doctrine, emphasizing that a statutory violation does not create a universal right of action for any resulting injury. It clarifies that courts must strictly analyze the legislative purpose behind a statute to determine the scope of its protection. This ruling prevents the expansion of consumer protection laws into the domain of workplace safety, directing plaintiffs with work-related injuries to seek remedies under statutes specifically designed for that purpose, such as workers' compensation laws.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Potts v. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co. (1983) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Potts v. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co.