Failure to Adequately Warn of Danger

Warning defects are also known as labeling defects or failure-to-warn defects. These defects occur in products that have inherent and non-obvious dangers and could be made safer through adequate warnings. In other words, a warning defect may exist when a product lacks a sufficient amount of instructions or warnings. For example, a riding lawnmower that fails to warn the consumer that it could tip over on hills may constitute a warning defect. Georgia allows consumers injured by this type of defect to recover for injuries in several ways.

An injured consumer may sue for damages based on theories of strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty, depending on the circumstances. Strict liability focuses on the product in question and not the actions of the manufacturer. Under this theory, the manufacturer will be held liable for a defective product even if the manufacturer was not negligent in manufacturing it. Specifically, Georgia law provides that the manufacturer of any personal property sold as new, directly or through a dealer, may be liable to any person who uses, consumes, or may reasonably be 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.

Thus, the key elements of a product liability suit under a strict liability theory are that the product was defective at the time of sale and that the defect was a proximate cause of the injury. It is important to note that strict liability is imposed only on products that are new. The phrase “new property” simply means the product was not damaged or used to a significant extent before the injury occurred. Also, a product is considered to be “not merchantable” when it contains a type of defect.

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 that was breached and that the injuries were proximately caused by that breach. In defective product cases, a manufacturer has a general duty to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing its products so as to make them reasonably safe for all intended or foreseeable uses. Proving that the manufacturer was negligent often requires a showing that the manufacturer’s conduct fell below the relevant standard of care, which may be determined by the industry standard. This typically requires an expert in the field who can testify as to what the industry standard is and whether the manufacturer failed to meet that standard. Additionally, a plaintiff must generally show that there was a defect in the product when it left the manufacturer.

In defective warning cases, there is a specific duty to warn whenever the manufacturer knows or reasonably should know of a danger arising from the use of its product. A duty to warn can arise even if the product is not otherwise defective. However, this duty only extends to the use of the product in a manner that may reasonably be contemplated and anticipated by the manufacturer. However, manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn of obvious, common dangers. For a warning to be considered adequate, it must provide a complete disclosure of the existence of the danger and the extent of the risk involved. Adequacy also depends on the language that is used and the impression that such language makes upon the mind of the average product user. Additionally, the knowledge and expertise of those who are reasonably expected to use the product are also taken into account. If a plaintiff fails to read instructions or warnings, he or she cannot recover on a claim grounded on the failure to provide an adequate warning. However, failure to read a warning does not prevent recovery when the plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the efforts of the manufacturer to communicate the dangers of the product.

A defective product case brought under these theories is typically supported by expert testimony at trial. However, a plaintiff may also put forth evidence of other incidents involving the product so long as they are substantially similarity to the current case. This can help to show that the manufacturer knew of the defect and failed to take action, which can establish liability and punitive damages. However, if the plaintiff cannot show the evidence is substantially similar, the evidence is not allowed.

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 may be commenced after 10 years from the date of the first sale of the personal property that caused the injury to an end user. However, negligence actions are not barred after 10 years where the manufacturer’s negligence has resulted in a product causing disease or a birth defect, or where the injuries arise out of especially egregious acts.

Recoverable damages under these theories 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. A plaintiff may also 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 person who passed away which includes an economic element and an intangible element. A plaintiff may also wish to seek punitive damages to punish and deter the manufacturer.

A defendant may stave off liability with one of many potential defenses. For example, a plaintiff’s recovery may be barred or reduced if the negligence or fault of the plaintiff is a proximate cause of the injury. Moreover, 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 which may bar recovery. 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 complexity and seriousness of defective product cases underscore the necessity of an experienced Atlanta, Georgia lawyer who will fight for your rights and interests.

The information provided above is a very general summary of the law of labeling and failure-to-warn defects 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 a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Our lawyers are licensed to practice in all Georgia state and federal courts.