This is the sixth appearance of this case before us and the second time our Supreme Court has remanded it here. In its most recent opinion, the Supreme Court succinctly summarized the factual highlights and procedural history of this case:
The owner of a fertilizer spreader truck backed it over Mrs. Jack Ogletree’s husband, causing his death. Mrs. Ogletree brought this wrongful death action, alleging that Navistar International Transportation Corporation Navistar, as manufacturer of the truck’s cab and chassis, had negligently breached a duty to install an audible back-up alarm on the vehicle. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Ogletree, but awarded damages for funeral and medical expenses only. Mrs. Ogletree made a motion for new trial on the issue of damages, and Navistar moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The trial court denied both motions for new trial, but granted Navistar’s motion for judgment n.o.v. The case has a long appellate history: Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp., 194 Ga. App. 41 390 SE2d 61 1989 Ogletree I; Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp. v. Ogletree, 199 Ga. App. 699 405 SE2d 884 1991 Ogletree II; Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp., 221 Ga. App. 363 471 SE2d 287 1996 Ogletree III; Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp., 227 Ga. App. 11 488 SE2d 97 1997 Ogletree IV; Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp., 269 Ga. 443 500 SE2d 570 1998 Ogletree V; Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp., 236 Ga. App. 89 511 SE2d 204 1999 Ogletree VI. In Ogletree IV, the Court of Appeals applied the “open and obvious danger” rule and affirmed the trial court’s grant of Navistar’s motion for judgment n.o.v. On certiorari in Ogletree V, this Court held that the open and obvious danger rule was no longer viable in design defect cases, in light of our adoption of the risk-utility analysis in Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732 450 SE2d 671 1994. On remand, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the judgment n.o.v. in favor of Navistar, on the grounds that Navistar was not negligent in failing to install a back-up alarm and that the risk of the cab and chassis without the alarm did not outweigh the usefulness of the product in that unequipped condition. Ogletree VI, supra at 94 2. We granted certiorari to consider the opinion in Ogletree VI. Because there was some evidence that the risk outweighed the utility of the cab and chassis without the alarm, the issue of negligent design cannot be decided as a matter of law and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
