This products liability case was brought by Herbert L. Lugsdin against Skil Corporation (Skil) to recover damages for injuries Lugsdin sustained when the lower blade guard of a circular saw manufactured by Skil failed to close and Lugsdin’s hand came into contact with the exposed blade. The first jury trial of this case ended in a verdict and judgment in favor of Skil. Thereafter, the trial court granted Lugsdin’s motion for a new trial. A second trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Lugsdin. Skil appeals.
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by denying its motion in limine and allowing appellee to elicit testimony from appellant’s corporate representative on cross-examination that appellant had received at least 48 informal complaints or lawsuits involving instances when lower blade guards had failed to close on the same or similar model saws as that used by appellee. Appellant contends that such testimony was not relevant to any issue involved in the case. We do not agree.
Similar acts or omissions on other and different occasions are
*755
not generally admissible to prove like acts or omissions at a different time or place.
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Clark,
One such issue was the claim in appellee’s complaint for punitive damages. “The award of punitive damages requires a tort accompanied by aggravating circumstances either in the act or the intention, evidenced by ‘wilful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences.’ [Cit.]”
Ga.-Carolina Brick &c. Co. v. Brown,
Although the case was ultimately submitted to the jury on a theory of strict liability, the action was also brought on a theory of negligence, making the testimony in question admissible to show knowledge of a dangerous condition or defect.
Pembrook Management v. Cossaboon,
Finally, on the issue of strict liability, the manufacturer’s knowledge of dangerous propensities is relevant to its duty to adequately warn of same. See
Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini,
Appellant also argues that appellee failed to lay a proper
*756
foundation for the admission of the testimony concerning the previous complaints. We do not agree. Prior to the testimony in question, appellee elicited from appellant’s corporate representative testimony establishing the similarity of the various models of saws that were the subjects of the complaints. The witness testified that each of the models were circular saws having lower blade guards activated by spring mechanisms that were designed to automatically cover the blade after a cut is made. Appellee’s expert witness later testified that the lower blade guards of the several models did not differ significantly in design or operation. There was, therefore, sufficient foundation testimony to establish relevancy, taking into consideration the purpose for which the evidence of complaints of similar incidents was introduced. See
Wright v. Dilbeck,
The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion in limine and in admitting the testimony.
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict because appellee failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue of strict liability for a manufacturing defect. Appellant argues there was no evidence establishing the existence of a manufacturing defect in the saw at the time it left the hands of the manufacturer — appellant. See Parzini, supra at 869.
After the incident in which appellee was injured, the saw was sent as a matter of routine to be repaired, and was then returned to the construction site. Thus, both parties were prevented from examining the saw to determine whether any defect was present at the time of appellee’s injury. However, evidence established that immediately after appellee was injured, the lower blade guard, which should have closed automatically and instantaneously after appellee completed his cut in the wood, was still in the open position, leaving the blade exposed. Appellee’s expert witness testified that the cause of the open guard was failure of the spring that should have closed the guard, and that such failure was a defect in the saw. Appellant’s expert testified that any failure of the guard to close would have been caused by damage to the saw by banging or dropping and that spring failure was very unlikely.
Other evidence showed that the saw was new, having been first removed from the manufacturer’s carton two months prior to appellee’s injury; that on the day he was injured, appellee observed that the saw was clean, in good condition, and not bent or jammed; that appellee used the saw to cut lumber without incident for the entire workday prior to being injured; and that appellee had not tampered with the guard to prevent it from closing.
Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish the existence
*757
of a manufacturing defect at the time the product left the manufacturer,
Firestone Tire &c. Co. v. King,
3. For the same reasons discussed in Division 2 above, the trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial on the general grounds. See King, supra at 842.
4. Appellant contends that appellee’s purported claim based upon a defect was contrary to law, and that the trial court erred in submitting this issue to the jury.
Appellant, not appellee, elicited the testimony that introduced the issue of a design defect into the case. Further, appellant made no objection to the trial court’s charge on design defects and manufacturing defects. “Unless the alleged error is blatantly apparent and prejudicial, appellant may not complain of the charge for the first time on appeal.”
McDaniel v. Gysel,
Judgment affirmed.