Product Liability
| Publication year | 2020 |
Product Liability
Franklin P. Brannen Jr.
Marcus Strong
Sean P. Robinson
[Page 223]
This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law between June 1, 2017 and May 31, 2019.1 It covers noteworthy cases decided during this period by the Georgia Supreme court, Georgia court of Appeals, and the united States district courts located in Georgia.
A. Design Defect
In Georgia cases where a plaintiff claims that a manufacturer negligently designed its products, courts use the "risk—utility analysis" to determine whether a manufacturer is liable for a plaintiff's injuries.2 This test
[Page 224]
incorporates the concept of "reasonableness," i.e., whether the manufacturer acted reasonably in choosing a particular product design, given the probability and seriousness of the risk posed by the design, the usefulness of the product in that condition, and the burden on the manufacturer to take the necessary steps to eliminate the risk.3
The trier of fact, "in determining whether a product was defectively designed, . . . may consider evidence establishing that at the time the product was manufactured, an alternative design would have made the product safer . . . was a marketable reality and technologically feasible."4
In Sheffield v. Conair Corp.,5 the plaintiff filed suit against "Conair Corporation, alleging that a Conair model heating pad used by" the plaintiff caused a mattress fire that ultimately resulted in her house burning down.6 The plaintiff asserted "that Conair manufactured and sold the subject heating pad in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition" because the pad reached such a high temperature it ignited the plaintiff's mattress and lacked safety mechanisms to limit the temperature of the pad.7 The defendant moved "for summary judgment, which the trial court granted."8 on appeal, the plaintiff argued that "the trial court erred because genuine issues of material fact exist[ed]" regarding the elements of her claims.9
In analyzing the plaintiff's design defect claim, the Georgia Court of Appeals cited to the Georgia Supreme Court's adoption of "the 'risk—utility analysis,' which requires a trier of fact to 'balanc[e] the risks inherent in a product design against the utility of the product . . . designed' to determine whether a design is defective."10 A trier of fact analyzes "whether the manufacturer acted reasonably in choosing a particular . . . design, given the probability and seriousness of the risk," the usefulness of the product, and the burden on the manufacturer to eliminate that risk.11 Further, when engaging in this analysis, the trier of fact looks at several factors, including but not limited to:
[Page 225]
[T]he usefulness of the product; the gravity and severity of the danger posed by the design; the likelihood of that danger; the avoidability of the danger, i.e., the user's knowledge of the product, publicity surrounding the danger, or the efficacy of warnings, as well as common knowledge and the expectation of danger, and the user's ability to avoid danger; the state of the art at the time the product is manufactured; the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the danger without impairing the product's usefulness or making it too expensive; and the feasibility of spreading the loss in the price or by purchasing insurance.12
In conducting this analysis, the court determined at the outset that apart from the fire itself, the plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence with which to analyze any of the above risk—utility factors.13 The court held that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of a defective or unreasonably safe condition in the heating pad.14 This failure was fatal to the plaintiff's claims of negligence and strict liability, and the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.15
In Woods v. A.R.E. Accessories,16 the Georgia Court of Appeals reiterated a different aspect of design defect claims: a manufacturer's duty to design against harm caused by an unforeseeable product use or misuse.17
The plaintiff brought a product liability action against the manufacturer of a pickup truck cap, asserting claims of strict liability and negligence on the basis that the truck cap was defectively designed. The plaintiff alleged he suffered a head injury at his place of employment when the rear hatchback door on a work pickup truck cap fell on his head as he stood behind the truck bed under the raised door. After the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, the plaintiff appealed.18
Applying Georgia law on design defect claims, the court of appeals conducted the risk—utility analysis to determine whether the defendant carried its burden to show "an absence of any evidence that [the]
[Page 226]
product as designed [was] defective."19 The court determined that the "reasonableness" test, specifically whether the defendant failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design, applied in this action.20 The reasonableness test at the heart of the risk—utility analysis imposes liability for a design defect only where the manufacturer failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design that would have reduced foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product.21
The undisputed facts in Woods showed that the truck cap door fell due to a detached gas strut, which was damaged by the plaintiff's employer's consistent use of a custom truck bed. The plaintiff provided no evidence to support his claim that the misuse of the truck bed and truck cap was foreseeable to the manufacturer.22
Because the record demonstrated that the truck cap fell because of the plaintiff's employer's unforeseeable misuse and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate otherwise, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.23
B. Manufacturing Defect
In Georgia, a manufacturing defect is identified as "a deviation from some objective standard or a departure from the manufacturer's specifications established for the creation of the product."24 A plaintiff cannot put forth a mere allegation that a product malfunctioned to create an issue of disputed material fact as to whether a manufacturing defect existed when a product left the defendant manufacturer's control. Expert testimony is sometimes necessary to make this showing, but Georgia courts do not always require the plaintiff to produce expert testimony.25
In O'Shea v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.,26 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia reiterated that the existence of a manufacturing defect in a product liability case may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.27 The plaintiff in O'Shea
[Page 227]
experienced knee pain seven years after having his knee replaced, and during diagnosis surgery, discovered the knee implant was broken. The plaintiff then filed claims of design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturers of the implant for injuries suffered from the device. The defendant moved for summary judgment and argued that the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony showing that the implant did not function as intended, but merely relied on circumstantial evidence that the implant did not function as long as intended.28 Among other evidence, the plaintiff presented a complaint-handling form regarding this incident from the defendants that affirmatively stated the device malfunctioned or failed to perform as intended and no other conditions contributed to its failure.29 The court held that this admission from the defendants created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff's knee implant suffered a manufacturing defect.30
Because the plaintiff was able to produce evidence through an internal complaint-handling form that the device did not operate as intended, the district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's manufacturing-defect claim.31
A. Duty of Seller
One of the essential elements in product liability actions claiming negligence is the existence of a legal duty. To succeed on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show the existence of a legal duty, the breach of that duty, and a causal connection between the alleged conduct and the plaintiff's injury. 32
In Sheats v. Kroger Co.,33 the plaintiff asserted a claim of ordinary negligence against Kroger after a grocery store trip where several glass bottles fell from the bottom of a cardboard package she lifted from a shelf and broke on the floor, resulting in an injury to the plaintiff's foot. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligence claim, and asserted that plaintiff failed to show any record evidence that the package failure was foreseeable to the grocery store.
[Page 228]
The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.34
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that a material issue of fact remained with respect to whether the package at issue was defective and the defendant maintained an unsafe package display.35 The court assessed the evidence the plaintiff presented in support of her negligence claim and determined summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.36 While "retailers owe consumers a duty to supply goods packed by reliable manufacturers . . . without imperfections that may be discovered by" the dealers in such products, the court reiterated that retailers who are not manufacturers have no obligation to test an item purchased and sold in the usual course and trade.37 Where a retailer lacks knowledge of any danger and nothing calls its attention to such danger, the retailer is not negligent in failing to exercise care to determine its existence.38
The court held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial