In a design defect case, an injured consumer may sue for damages under a theory of strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty depending on the facts of the case. Strict liability focuses on the product itself rather than the conduct of the manufacturer. Thus, the manufacturer will be held liable for a defective product even if the manufacturer was not negligent in manufacturing the product.

Specifically, Georgia law provides that the manufacturer of any personal property sold as new property directly or through a dealer may be liable to any person who uses, consumes, or may be reasonably affected by the property. When such a person suffers an injury to his person or property, liability attaches if the property sold by the manufacturer was not merchantable and not reasonably suited for its intended uses, and its condition when sold was the proximate cause of the injury sustained.

The term "new" means the product was not damaged nor was it used to a significant extent at the time of the injury. Additionally, a product that is "not merchantable" is simply a product that was designed with a defect, manufactured with a defect, or packaged defectively. Thus, the key elements of a product liability suit under a strict liability theory are that the product was defective, that it was defective at the time of sale, and that the defect was a proximate cause of the injury.

An injured consumer may also bring an action under a theory of negligence. Negligence asks whether the defendant exercised reasonable care. For a plaintiff to win, he must show that the defendant had a duty to the consumer which was breached and that the consumer's injuries were proximately caused by that breach of duty. In product liability cases, negligence is often defined as the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. An injured person must generally show that there was a defect in the product when it left the manufacturer.

In design defect cases, a risk-utility analysis generally is performed. This analysis weighs the risks inherent in a particular product design against the utility or benefit derived from the product. In negligence cases, the concept of reasonableness is employed. One factor which is considered in this analysis is whether there is a safer alternative design that is ready for the market and technologically feasible. In regards to a safer alternative, the court may look at the financial costs of the improved design, the adverse side effects, the appearance and aesthetic attractiveness, the product's utility for multiple purposes, the convenience and extent of its use, and the safety of the product's features.

A risk-utility analysis for the product itself may include the usefulness of the product, the gravity and severity of the danger posed by the design, the likelihood of danger, the avoidability of danger, the state of the art at the time the product was manufactured, the ability to eliminate the danger without impairing the product's usefulness or making it too expensive, the feasibility of spreading the loss in the price or by purchasing insurance, and a manufacturer's proof of compliance with federal regulations.

Evidence produced at trial to prove a plaintiff's case usually involves expert testimony. A plaintiff may also put forth evidence of other incidents involving the product so long as there is a showing of substantial similarity with the current case. This can help to show that the manufacturer knew of the defect and failed to take action which can help establish liability and punitive damages. If the plaintiff cannot show the evidence was substantially similar, then the evidence is irrelevant and kept out.

Product liability claims brought under theories of strict liability and negligence are generally subject to a two year statute of limitations for personal injury. Furthermore, no such action can be commenced after 10 years from the date the defective product was sold or first used. However, there are some exceptions that will extend the limitations period.

Damages under negligence and strict liability that are recoverable may include lost earnings, loss of future earnings, medical expenses that have been incurred and those that will be, and past and future pain and suffering. In the case of a death, a plaintiff may seek to recover for the wrongful death of his or her decedent. The measure of a wrongful death recovery is the full value of the life of the decedent which includes an economic element and an intangible element.

Punitive damages may also be awarded. Product liability actions under negligence and strict liability theories are usually not bound by the statutory cap for punitive damage awards.

A defendant manufacturer has many potential defenses. For instance, a plaintiff's recovery may be barred or reduced if the negligence or fault of the plaintiff is a proximate cause of the injury which is known as contributory negligence. A defendant may argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk and is therefore not liable. A defendant may also argue that a plaintiff altered, modified, or misused a product. In addition, the fact that a defect was disclosed or is discoverable by the exercise of caution by the purchaser may also bar recovery in some situations. Many other defenses may also exist depending on the specific facts of the case.

The information provided above is a very general summary of the law regarding this particular legal issue at the time this text was prepared. Because this analysis is subject to change depending upon recent cases and developments, you should not rely on this summary as legal advice. As with any important legal question, you should always consult with an experienced Georgia product liability lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Our lawyers are licensed to practice in all Georgia state and federal courts.