When a product causes a catastrophic injury, calling it “dangerous” does not necessarily explain what went wrong.
Was the product designed in a way that created an unreasonable risk? Or did users not receive adequate warnings about a danger associated with using it?
Those questions can lead to different product liability theories under Georgia law. After a serious injury involving machinery, equipment, a consumer product, or another manufactured item, identifying the alleged defect can be critical to evaluating a claim.
A Design Defect Focuses on the Product Itself
A defective design claim asks whether something about the way the product was designed made it unreasonably dangerous.
Georgia courts use a risk-utility analysis in design defect cases. Rather than simply asking whether a product could have been made safer, the analysis can consider multiple factors surrounding the design and whether the risks outweighed the product’s usefulness.
Depending on the product, an investigation may examine:
- How the product was intended to function.
- The danger created by the challenged design.
- Whether a different design was feasible.
- The usefulness of the product.
- The likelihood and severity of potential injuries.
- Whether safety features could have reduced the risk.
For example, an industrial machine may operate exactly as its manufacturer intended, yet an injury could raise questions about whether the original design adequately protected people from moving components.
The issue is not necessarily that the product malfunctioned. The design itself may require examination.
A Failure-to-Warn Claim Asks a Different Question
Sometimes the product’s physical design is not the central issue.
A product may present a danger that requires adequate instructions or warnings. A failure-to-warn claim can involve whether the manufacturer knew or should have known about a risk and whether users received enough information to understand and avoid it.
That may require examining labels, instruction manuals, safety materials, packaging, training information, and communications concerning known hazards.
The timing can also matter. Georgia law recognizes that a manufacturer’s duty to warn may include dangers learned after a product enters the market under certain circumstances.
The Same Injury Can Raise Both Issues
Design and warning questions are not always mutually exclusive.
Imagine equipment that exposes a worker to a hazardous moving component. An investigation might examine whether a guard or another design change could have reduced the danger. Separately, it might ask whether the manufacturer adequately warned users about the remaining hazard.
Evidence may include engineering documents, earlier product versions, safety testing, incident reports, warnings, manuals, industry standards, and expert analysis.
The goal is to determine what allegedly made the product unsafe rather than treating every product injury as the same type of claim.
Identifying the Defect Can Shape the Entire Investigation
At Ashby Thelen Lowry, our Atlanta product injury attorneys investigate catastrophic injuries by examining how the product was designed, how it was intended to be used, what risks were known, and what information users received about those risks.
A serious injury alone does not establish that a product was defective. Understanding whether the issue involved the design, the warnings, or potentially both can be essential to determining whether a Georgia product liability claim exists.
If you or someone you love suffered catastrophic injuries involving a dangerous or defective product in Georgia, call (404) 777-7771 or contact us online to discuss what happened and learn more about your legal options.