Thе Bufords filed suit on-behalf of their minor son for injuries suffered when the bicycle he was riding sepаrated at a weld, causing serious injury. They appeal from the trial court’s grant of summаry judgment to Toys R’ Us (the seller). 1
Viewed with all inferences in favor of the Bufords and under the standard of
Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,
In November 1990, the Bufords purсhased a Rallye bike for their son from seller. On April 21, 1991, while the boy was riding the bike, the steer tubе separated from the front fork, throwing him face first to the pavement.
SamChuly shippеd the bikes to the seller semi-assembled, i.e., all tubing was welded together and the seller mеrely had to install the pedals, seat, handlebars, and adjust the brakes and gears. The bicycle bore, on the tubing beneath the seat, SamChuly’s name as manufacturer and listed a serial number.
The seller’s expert witness, who had been in the bicycle manufacturing business fоr years, stated that the welding of the steer tube to the front fork would have been done by SamChuly and, once welded, would have been painted. Further, he stated that it was not thе practice in the industry, before selling the bikes, to inspect welds like the one which gave way. He opined that the weld was inadequate when done.
Purchase orders used by the seller and signed by the manufacturer contained language stating that the bicycles met all safety requirements imposed by the Consumer Products Safety Commission and included an indemnification clause.
The Bufords alleged strict liability, negligence against the seller, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
1. Regarding the claim for strict liаbility, OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) (1) provides for strict liability with respect to the manufacturer of personal property sold as new. It is not contested that SamChuly was the “manufacturer” of the bicycle, and, more specifically, the one which performed the welding of the tubing.
The Bufords attempt to circumvent this requirement, contending that, by requiring use of the “Rallye” mark, the seller became an “ostensible” manufacturer. As pointed out in
Alltrade v. McDonald,
2. The Bufords allege that the seller was negligent in failing to inspect the bicycle and discover the defective weld. Such a claim is premised оn the finding of a duty on seller to test or inspect the welds, which is absent under these circumstаnces. A dealer or seller,
*567
not the manufacturer, which purchases and sells an аrticle in common and general use, such as a bicycle, in the usual course of trаde and without knowledge of any dangerous quality, i.e., a latent defect, is not negligent fоr failing to determine the defect. Id. at 228 (3c);
Ryals v. Billy Poppell, Inc.,
3. Finally, the Bufords claim summary judgment was improperly granted on their claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability set оut in OCGA § 11-2-314 (2) (c), i.e., that the goods were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.”
The argument made by the Bufords is that the establishment of this implied warranty on a deаler/seller “clearly places the same strict liability” on the seller as applies to the manufacturer.
As discussed in Alltrade, supra, however, liability on the seller under the implied warranty is not the same as the strict liability imposed on the manufacturer.
Even assuming a viable сlaim, however, under OCGA § 11-2-607 (3) (a), when goods have been accepted, as the bicycle was in 1990, the buyer must give notice to the seller within a “reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach. . . .” Here, although the accident occurred on April 21, 1991, no notice was received by seller until the complaint wаs served upon it two years later. We conclude that, under the circumstances, suсh notice was not “reasonable” as a matter of law. See
Cobb County &c. v. Mat Factory,
The grant of summary judgment to the seller was proper.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Several parties were originally named as defendants. The suit against SamChuly Bicycle of Korea remains pending.