How Does Georgia Decide If a Product’s Design Is Defective? The Risk-Utility Test

When a product is claimed to be dangerous because of how it was designed, Georgia does not ask simply whether a consumer found it more dangerous than expected. Instead, it applies a risk-utility test, weighing the dangers of a design against its benefits. This approach, set by the Georgia Supreme Court, governs design-defect cases. This guide explains what the test is, why Georgia uses it, the factors courts weigh, and the role of alternative designs.

What the Risk-Utility Test Is

The risk-utility test is a balancing test. To decide whether a product’s design is defective, the trier of fact weighs the risks inherent in the design against the utility or benefit the product provides. If, on balance, the risks of the chosen design outweigh its usefulness, the design can be found defective. If the utility outweighs the risks, it generally is not.

This means a design-defect case is not resolved by asking whether the product was dangerous in the abstract. Many useful products carry inherent dangers. The question is whether the design struck a reasonable balance, given what was feasible, between the benefits it delivered and the risks it imposed.

Why Georgia Uses It

Georgia adopted the risk-utility test in the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 (1994). In that case, arising from a child’s death after ingesting rat poison, the court surveyed approaches from other jurisdictions and treatises and chose risk-utility balancing as the standard for design-defect claims, declining to use a pure consumer-expectations test as the measure of design defect.

The court also observed that in design cases, the analysis under a strict-liability theory and under a negligence theory largely converge, because both ultimately examine whether the manufacturer acted reasonably in its design choices. This is why Georgia design-defect law is often described as applying negligence-like principles to the design question, even when the claim is framed as strict liability.

The Factors Courts Weigh

Banks made clear that no fixed, exhaustive list of factors governs every case, since the relevant considerations vary with the facts. But the court identified considerations on both sides of the balance. On the risk and feasibility side, courts may weigh the feasibility of an alternative design, the availability of an effective and safer substitute that meets the same need, the financial cost of an improved design, and any adverse effects an alternative design would introduce.

On the utility side, courts may consider the usefulness of the product, its utility for multiple uses, the convenience and extent of its use, and the collateral safety of features other than the one alleged to be defective. The fact-finder weighs these considerations together rather than mechanically. Notably, a manufacturer’s compliance with industry practice, the state of the art, or federal regulations does not by itself conclusively eliminate liability; it is part of the picture, not an automatic shield.

The Role of Alternative Designs

The availability of a reasonable safer alternative design is often central to a design-defect case. In assessing whether a product was defectively designed, the fact-finder may consider whether, at the time the product was made, an alternative design would have made it safer, was a marketable reality, and was technologically feasible. Evidence that a practical, safer alternative existed strengthens a design-defect claim, while the absence of any feasible safer alternative cuts the other way.

This emphasis on alternatives reflects the test’s core logic: a design is judged not in isolation but against what reasonably could have been done. The plaintiff typically must do more than show the product was dangerous; the focus is on whether a feasible alternative would have reduced the danger while preserving the product’s usefulness. Because these questions often require expert testimony about feasibility and trade-offs, design-defect cases tend to be evidence-intensive.

Key Takeaways

• Georgia decides design-defect claims with a risk-utility test, balancing a design’s dangers against its benefits, not a pure consumer-expectations test.
• The standard comes from Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 (1994), and Georgia treats the negligence and strict-liability design inquiries as largely converging.
• Courts weigh feasibility, safer substitutes, cost, and adverse effects against the product’s usefulness and other benefits, with no fixed factor list.
• A feasible, safer alternative design is often central, and compliance with industry or regulatory standards is not by itself a complete defense.

This article provides general information about Georgia law and is not legal advice. Statutes and court decisions change, and how the law applies depends on the specific facts of a situation. For advice about a particular matter, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.