Grant M. Williams v. Pacific Cycle, Inc.
661 F. App'x 716
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Williams sues Pacific Cycle for strict liability, negligence, and failure-to-warn after a March 23, 2011 bicycle accident.
- Williams wore a Pulsar Schwinn helmet at the time; helmet manufactured July 2, 2008 by Strategic Sports, Limited.
- Pacific Cycle owns Schwinn brand and imported Pulsars after acquiring PTI’s assets in 2008.
- PTI provided a Pulsar instructional booklet and header card, and set some design specifications; Pacific Cycle distributed Pulsars to retailers.
- CPSC regulations require testing programs; Strategic performed testing under its agreement with PTI and Pacific Cycle.
- District court granted summary judgment to Pacific Cycle on all three claims; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict liability: is Pacific Cycle a product seller under Georgia law? | Williams argues Pacific Cycle active in design/sales makes it a manufacturer. | Pacific Cycle is a product seller; actual manufacturer role remains with Strategic/PTI. | No; Pacific Cycle not a manufacturer; actions cited do not convert it to a manufacturer. |
| Negligence: can Pacific Cycle be liable as ostensible manufacturer or for negligent importation/sale? | Pacific Cycle may be an ostensible manufacturer and bear duties under CPSC rules. | No ostensible manufacture; testing duties delegated to foreign manufacturer; CPSC testing does not create negligence. | No; not liable for negligent manufacture/design or negligent import/sale. |
| Failure to warn: did Pacific Cycle owe a duty to warn based on notice of danger? | Pacific Cycle had knowledge or should have known of dangers from Pulsar. | No notice of danger; Pulsar compliant with CPSC regulations; no duty breached. | District court properly granted summary judgment; no notice of danger. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alltrade, Inc. v. McDonald, 445 S.E.2d 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (confirms product seller designation excludes strict-liability manufacturer liability)
- Ream Tool Co. v. Newton, 433 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (shipping/distribution alone does not make a manufacturer)
- Schneider v. Tri Star Int’l, Inc., 476 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (providing design specs is within product seller role)
- Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equip. Co., 605 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (advisory board service does not make one a manufacturer)
- Nelson v. C.M. City, Inc., 463 S.E.2d 902 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (name on product alone does not establish manufacture; design involvement required)