USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Michael Weiss and Jamie Carroll, Carroll & Weiss
is liable, and if it issues a verdict for the plaintiff, proceeding to a second phase to determine the amount of damages. Only evidence relevant to liability would be allowed in the first phase, so the jury will not hear details of the plaintiff’s injuries. If punitive damages are sought, those would be determined in a third phase. The court may only reject a request to split (or “bifurcate”) the trial if another party moves to oppose and either the amount sought is less than USD150,000 or the injury involves sexual assault and the judge deter - mines forcing the plaintiff to testify twice would cause serious psychological distress – both rarely present in product liability claims. Previously, bifur - cation was left to the trial court’s discretion. • Plaintiffs will no longer be allowed to dismiss a case late in the process without consequence to refile the claim in what it believes is a more favourable jurisdiction (or to avoid a judge seen as unfavourable). Previously, a plaintiff could dismiss a case without consequence up until the time the first witness was sworn in at trial; the deadline is now 60 days after defendant files an answer. • Any discovery and the requirement to answer a complaint are now placed on hold if a defendant files a motion to dismiss at the outset of a case, with no answer due until 15 days after the court denies the motion. Previously, a defendant had to answer even if it filed a motion to dismiss (unlike in federal court and in most states) and was required to respond to any discovery while the court was deciding the motion. Litigation funding The second statute, known as the Georgia Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act, requires liti - gation funding companies to register with the state, makes litigation funding agreements and terms dis - coverable, restricts funding by foreign entities, and limits the input funders can have into litigation strat - egy. Statute of Repose Georgia’s statute of repose requires most claims for injury on a product to be filed within ten years of the product’s sale. In 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court heard a case brought by a woman who claimed she developed uterine fibroids after using chemical hair
relaxers over nearly two decades. The question was whether the statute barred the claim because she first started using the product more than 20 years before filing suit, or did each purchase start the clock anew? The Court concluded plaintiff’s claims could pro - ceed because she bought at least some hair relaxers within the ten years of filing the claim, but left open the question of whether the defendant manufacturer could eventually prevail by proving the amount of hair relaxer she used within the statutory period was not sufficient, by itself, to cause her alleged injuries. In another recent Supreme Court decision, the Court held that the exception to the statute of repose for claims involving a “disease” applies only to latent con - ditions that only appear many years after exposure to the product (such as mesothelioma), and not to any recurrent or chronic conditions, even if they more closely resemble a “disease” – in that case, persistent urinary tract infections. Product Misuse The Supreme Court also recently held that evidence that a product was misused by a third party did not bar a plaintiff from asserting a claim against the prod - uct manufacturer. The 2022 decision involved a claim against the social media app Snapchat, which includ - ed a feature that allowed users to record their speed and include it in their posts. A woman driving more than 100 mph while using the feature struck the plain - tiff’s car; and when she sued Snapchat, the company countered that the intentional wrongful behaviour of the driver barred the claim. The Supreme Court, how - ever, stated that a manufacturer has a duty to guard against reasonably foreseeable misuse of its product and allowed the claim to proceed. (The case is appar - ently still ongoing.) Statewide Settlements In a ruling with limited application but that could guide future mass product liability settlements, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the State of Georgia’s set - tlement with a group of opioid manufacturers barred any state or municipal entity in Georgia from pursuing its own claim. The case arose from a certified ques - tion from the federal court handling nationwide opioid claims and involved a county hospital authority seek - ing to pursue its own pre-existing claims for expenses
354 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook