What Legal Theories Can You Use in a Georgia Product Liability Case?
On this page
A Georgia product claim can rest on three theories: strict liability against the manufacturer (O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)), negligence against anyone whose careless conduct caused the injury, and breach of warranty under Georgia’s commercial code. They differ in who can be sued, what must be proved, and how long the claim lasts, which is why a single injury can be pleaded under more than one.
The three theories compared
| Strict liability | Negligence | Breach of warranty | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source | § 51-1-11(b)(1) | Common law and § 51-1-11(c) | Georgia's version of UCC Article 2 (Title 11, Chapter 2) |
| Who can be sued | The "manufacturer of any personal property sold as new property"; a "product seller" is not liable as a manufacturer (§ 51-1-11.1(b)) | Any party whose unreasonable conduct caused the harm, including a seller | The seller who gave the warranty |
| What must be proved | The product, "when sold by the manufacturer", was "not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended", and that condition caused the injury | A failure to exercise reasonable care in design, manufacture, inspection, or warning, causing the injury | A breach of an express or implied warranty |
| Who can bring it | "Any natural person who may use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property", "irrespective of privity" | The person injured | The buyer, plus family and household members and guests in the buyer's home (§ 11-2-318) |
| Ten-year repose from first sale | Yes (§ 51-1-11(b)(2)) | For claims against a manufacturer, yes, with exceptions (§ 51-1-11(c)) | Not addressed by § 51-1-11 |
Strict liability: condition, not conduct
Section 51-1-11(b)(1) does not require proof that the manufacturer was careless. It asks whether the product was defective when the manufacturer sold it and whether that defect caused the injury. The statute also says “a manufacturer may not exclude or limit the operation of this subsection” (§ 51-1-11(b)(3)). Its main limit is who can be sued: retailers and distributors are not manufacturers for this purpose, a rule explained in whether you can sue the store or only the manufacturer.
The plaintiff’s own fault still counts. In Johns v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. (2020), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that § 51-12-33(a), which reduces damages by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, applies to strict product liability claims.
Negligence: conduct, and a wider set of defendants
A negligence claim asks whether a defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. For design claims the two theories overlap; the Supreme Court observed in Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc. (1994) that the risk-utility design test “bespeaks negligence”. Negligence reaches parties strict liability does not, such as a seller that altered or mishandled a product, and § 51-1-11(c) keeps negligence claims alive past ten years in two situations: manufacturing negligence for products “which cause a disease or birth defect”, and conduct manifesting “a willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property”.
Warranty: a contract theory with a household extension
A warranty claim rests on a promise about the goods, express or implied (such as the implied warranty of merchantability). Section 11-2-318 extends a seller’s warranty to “any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume, or be affected by the goods”, and provides that “a seller may not exclude or limit the operation of this Code section”. Outside that group, warranty claims follow the contract relationship.
Matching theory to defendant
- Who manufactured the product, and when was it first sold as new?
- Did any seller design, alter, assemble, or mishandle it?
- Did the seller make express promises about safety or performance?
- Is the injured person the buyer, a household member or guest, or a bystander?
The type of defect (manufacturing, design, or warning) is explained in manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure to warn.
Sources
- O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-318, 51-1-11, 51-1-11.1, 51-12-33 (§ 11-2-318 text as published in October 2016 on a mirror site; no amendment recorded in the 2022 to 2026 legislative summaries).
- Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 (1994)
- Johns v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., 310 Ga. 159 (2020)
General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.