Lexplug logoLexplug

Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.

Supreme Court of Georgia
264 Ga. 732, 450 S.E.2d 671, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3978 (1994)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In product liability cases alleging a design defect, the finder of fact must apply a risk-utility analysis that balances the inherent risks of the product's design against the utility or benefit derived from the product, rather than merely determining if the product functioned for its intended purpose.


Facts:

  • Nine-year-old Mario Strum visited a local boy's club.
  • A pest control company serviced the boy's club with pest control products.
  • Mario discovered a cabinet at the club containing 'Talon-G,' a rodenticide manufactured by ICI Americas, Inc.
  • The Talon-G was stored in an unmarked container.
  • Mario ingested an unknown quantity of the Talon-G rodenticide.
  • Mario died as a result of ingesting the poison.
  • The plaintiffs (Mario's parents and estate administrator) alleged that Talon-G was defectively designed and inadequately labeled.

Procedural Posture:

  • Parents and estate administrator filed suit against the boy's club, the pest control company, and ICI Americas in the trial court.
  • The boy's club and pest control company settled with the plaintiffs.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial against ICI Americas alone.
  • The jury returned a verdict against ICI Americas, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
  • ICI Americas appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling the evidence was insufficient to support a design defect finding.
  • The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Georgia law require the adoption of a risk-utility analysis standard for determining liability in product design defect cases, replacing the prior standard which assessed whether a product functioned properly for its intended use?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Hunstein

Yes, the court determines that the risk-utility analysis is the appropriate standard for design defect cases. The court reasoned that previous Georgia precedents, such as Parzini and Mann, were inadequate for design defect claims because they primarily addressed manufacturing defects or erroneously held that a product fitting its 'intended purpose' could not be defective. The court recognized that in design defect cases, the entire product line is challenged rather than a single aberrant unit. Consequently, the court adopted a balancing test weighing the risks inherent in a design against the product's utility. The court also held that evidence of a feasible, safer alternative design is a crucial factor for the jury to consider. Additionally, the court affirmed that federal law (FIFRA) preempts state law regarding the adequacy of the product's labeling.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Fletcher

Yes, the risk-utility analysis is the correct standard, but the specific formulation should be stricter. Justice Fletcher argued that proving the existence of a reasonable, safer alternative design should be an essential element of the plaintiff's case, not merely a factor to be considered. He emphasized that a manufacturer should only be liable if the alternative design would have caused a materially significant increase in safety. He also dissented regarding the procedural outcome, arguing that the appellate courts should review the evidence under the new rule immediately rather than remanding for a new trial.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Carley

Yes, the adoption of the risk-utility analysis is correct, but the case should be remanded differently. Justice Carley agreed with the new legal test but dissented from the majority's decision to order a new trial immediately. He argued the case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals first to apply the new rule to the existing record and address remaining errors.



Analysis:

This decision marks a pivotal shift in Georgia tort law by abandoning the older, more restrictive 'intended use' doctrine in favor of the modern 'risk-utility' test for design defects. By doing so, the court brings Georgia in line with the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatement (Third) of Torts. The ruling significantly expands potential liability for manufacturers, as they can no longer defend a product simply by proving it works as intended (e.g., a poison that effectively kills rats). Instead, they must justify the design choices by proving the utility outweighs the risks, and they face scrutiny regarding whether a safer, feasible alternative existed at the time of manufacture.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc. (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"