content warning in Georgia

2026So Yamaha moved for a mistrial, arguing that it could not “get a fair trial without being able to present this evidence for all of the reasons ... already stated.” The trial court denied the mistrial motion, mistakenly stating, “[W]e’re in this position because you asked me to exclude the content of the warning, which I did.” (In fact, it was Hall who moved in limine to exclude the contents of the warnings, given Yamaha’s summary judgment.) As detailed above, at least twice Yamaha sought the admission of the contents of its warnings on the ground that the warnings were, as counsel argued, “rel

2026So Yamaha moved for a mistrial, arguing that it could not “get a fair trial without being able to present this evidence for all of the reasons ... already stated.” The trial court denied the mistrial motion, mistakenly stating, “[W]e’re in this position because you asked me to exclude the content of the warning, which I did.” (In fact, it was Hall who moved in limine to exclude the contents of the warnings, given Yamaha’s summary judgment.) As detailed above, at least twice Yamaha sought the admission of the contents of its warnings on the ground that the warnings were, as counsel argued, “rel

2016A failure to read a warning will defeat a “claim grounded upon an inadequacy of warning by reason of the insufficient, inaccurate misleading nature of the content of the warning.” Wilson Foods Corp. v. Turner, 218 Ga. App. 74, 76 (1) ( 460 SE2d 532 ) (1995) (citation omitted; emphasis in original).

2016A failure to read a warning will defeat a “claim grounded upon an inadequacy of warning by reason of the insufficient, inaccurate misleading nature of the content of the warning.” Wilson Foods Corp. v. Turner, 218 Ga. App. 74, 76 (1) ( 460 SE2d 532 ) (1995) (citation omitted; emphasis in original).

2005West Trust v. Market Value of Atlanta, 262 Ga. App. at 93 (2) (a property appraiser was not liable to third parties who relied on his appraisal when the appraiser expressly prohibited his client from giving the appraisal to others and did not intend for the appraisal to be used by nonclients). 4 In this case, the “information” which allegedly caused Talton’s injuries is the content of the warning label.

1995See generally Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 879 (3) ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); Houck v. State, 173 Ga. App. 388 (2) ( 326 SE2d 567 ) (1985).

1995See generally Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 879 (3) ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); Houck v. State, 173 Ga. App. 388 (2) ( 326 SE2d 567 ) (1985).

1995Appellees’ complaint, however, avers inter alia: “Defendant Wilson Foods Corporation had a duty to warn that its product container was not fit for the storage of cooked or hot shortening and failed to provide such a warning or to provide an adequate warning so as to alert consumers and, specifically, plaintiff ... to the dangers inherent in storing used or cooked grease in its container.” Additionally, it was averred that appellant “was negligent in failing to adequately warn users of its product of the dangers associated with storing cooked or used grease in such containers.” Clearly, under t

1995Appellees’ complaint, however, avers inter alia: “Defendant Wilson Foods Corporation had a duty to warn that its product container was not fit for the storage of cooked or hot shortening and failed to provide such a warning or to provide an adequate warning so as to alert consumers and, specifically, plaintiff ... to the dangers inherent in storing used or cooked grease in its container.” Additionally, it was averred that appellant “was negligent in failing to adequately warn users of its product of the dangers associated with storing cooked or used grease in such containers.” Clearly, under t

1957The statement in the opinion in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. O’Neill, 127 Ga. 685, 690 ( 56 S. E. 986 ), that “There does not seem to be any error, as against the defendant, in the instructions complained of which declared that it is the duty of a party imperiled by another’s negligence, where two ways of conduct are open, one safe and the other manifestly dangerous, to adopt that course which is safe,” does -not correctly reflect the content of the instruction given, it not being set out in the report of the case.