Georgia recognizes three: manufacturing, design, and warning defects. O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(1) doesn’t list them. It says a product was “not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended,” and courts have sorted cases into these three.
| Type | Question | Proof | Example, hypothetical |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing | Did this unit differ from the design? | The unit itself, plant records | A brake line with one bad weld |
| Design | Did the risks outweigh the benefits? | Engineers; alternatives | A tool with no guard, where one was feasible |
| Warning | Was the danger adequately explained? | Label, manual | A chemical with no ventilation warning |
The design test comes from Banks v. ICI Americas (1994), which adopted a risk-utility analysis. Evidence of a safer alternative design is central, and compliance with a government standard is evidence but isn’t always decisive.
Each type behaves differently over time. Manufacturing and design claims against a manufacturer have the ten-year limit from first sale in § 51-1-11(b)(2), with the exceptions that section states. Failing to warn of a danger that later becomes known is treated differently, under § 51-1-11(c) and Chrysler Corp. v. Batten (1994).
A plaintiff can plead more than one. If the unit was destroyed, a manufacturing theory is hard to prove, which is why keeping the product matters so much. Industry-wide theories aren’t available, § 51-1-11(d).
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.