O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This article may be cited as the “Georgia Food Act.”
History
Ga. L. 1956, p. 195, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. For annual survey on product liability:
a two-year survey, see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 223 (2019).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Genuine issue of fact remained as to causation of food poisoning. - In an action by rehearsal dinner guests against a caterer alleging food poisoning, summary judgment for the caterer was
error; the caterer’s circumstantial evidence of the absence of causation (others did not become ill, the guests consumed other food and drink, and did not become ill until days later) was contradicted by
other evidence. Patterson v. Kevon, LLC, 304 Ga. 232, 818 S.E.2d 575, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 536 (2018). Res ipsa loquitur principle misapplied in consumer food product liability case. - In a consumer food product liability case, the trial court misapplied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because having found that the doctrine applied, the trial court was obligated to allow the
jury to determine whether the defendant’s negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries under a jury charge that included the principle of res ipsa loquitur instead of granting summary judgment to the defendant. Matthews v. Yoplait USA, Inc., 352 Ga. App. 591, 835 S.E.2d 393, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 601 (2019).
Notes of Decisions
Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, Inc., 504 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 16× “"A food shall be deemed to be adulterated if: (1) it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health.”
Patterson v. Kevon, LLC, 818 S.E.2d 575 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The Pattersons brought this action for negligence, violation of the Georgia Food Act ( OCGA § 26-2-20 et seq. ), and products liability, alleging that the food at the dinner was defective, pathogen-contaminated, undercooked, and negligently prepared.”
Potts v. Fid. Fruit & Produce Co., Inc., 301 S.E.2d 903 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “*547 (OCGA §§ 26-2-20 et seq.). However, the appellant has since conceded that the evidence would not sustain a finding of ordinary negligence.”
Foster v. Georgia Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 359 S.E.2d 877 (Ga. 1987).
· cites it 2× “4 Furthermore, there exists a separate state statute (the Georgia Food Act, OCGA § 26-2-20 et seq.) which prohibits the adulteration and misbranding of food; and, of course, the FDCA prohibits the misbranding and adulteration of foods as well as drugs.”
Planters & Citizens Bank v. Home Ins. Co., 786 F. Supp. 977 (S.D. Ga. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The Consumer Protection Division of the GDOA inspected the pecans stored in Mascot Pecan’s warehouses for compliance with the Georgia Food Act, O.C.G.A. § 26-2-20 et seq. (1982 & Supp.1991), and the Warehouse Division of the GDOA performed inspections pursuant to the Georgia…”
Patterson Et Al. v. Kevon, LLC, 802 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The Pattersons also claimed that Kevon had violated the Georgia Food Act, OCGA § 26-2-20 et seq., by serving food that was adulterated and that Kevon was strictly liable for failing to warn the Pattersons of defective conditions in the food served at the dinner.”
Tangerina Matthews v. Yoplait USA, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Matthews sued Yoplait for negligence under OCGA § 51-1-23, negligence per se for violation of the Georgia Food Act, OCGA § 26-2-20 et seq., and expenses of litigation.”
Patterson v. Kevon, LLC, 304 Ga. 232 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The Pattersons brought this action for negligence, violation of the Georgia Food Act (OCGA § 26-2-20 et seq.), and products liability, alleging that the food at the dinner was defective, pathogen-contaminated, undercooked, and negligently prepared.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.