Jones v. Amazing Products, Inc.

Majority - CARNES, District Judge

1. Yes, the court denies summary judgment on the claims regarding the negligent design of the container. A jury could reasonably conclude that Amazing Products, Inc. was negligent in the design of the Liquid Fire container. The instructions for "MAXIMUM QUANTITY USAGE," along with directions to pour slowly and at arm's length while holding a pail, implicitly suggested or encouraged users to measure the product or transfer it to a more controllable container (like one with a handle). Given that Liquid Fire is 97% sulfuric acid and that Amazing Products assumed most purchasers are untrained consumers, the manufacturer could have reasonably foreseen that a user might transfer the liquid into another container for better control or measurement. The court rejected the argument that Mr. Jones's specific reason for transfer (shoulder condition) negated foreseeability, as a general concern about spillage is reasonable. Therefore, a jury could find that Amazing Products was negligent in not adopting measures like a see-through bottle with measurement units, pre-measured doses, or a handled container for pint/quart sizes. The court applied the same reasoning to the strict liability claim for a defective container design, noting the established overlap between negligence and strict liability analyses for design defects under Georgia law. 2. Yes, the court denies summary judgment on the claims regarding inadequate communication of warnings. While Mr. Jones's partial failure to read the warning label due to small print would bar claims challenging the substance of the warning, it does not bar claims challenging the adequacy of communication (e.g., location, presentation, print size). The instruction not to transfer the product was located "buried in the middle of a long paragraph, in a very small print size," making it difficult to locate even for the court. A jury question exists as to whether Amazing Products adequately communicated the prohibition against transferring the liquid. 3. No, the court grants summary judgment for Amazing Products on the manufacturing defect claims. A manufacturing defect requires evidence that the specific product purchased deviated from the manufacturer's objective standards or design specifications. The plaintiffs presented no evidence that Mr. Jones's specific bottle of Liquid Fire had a manufacturing error or was not manufactured in accordance with its design, only that the product itself was dangerous. 4. No, the court grants summary judgment for Amazing Products on the claims regarding failure to bundle additional safety equipment. Georgia law does not impose a duty on manufacturers to make accident-proof products or to specify what kind of safety or protective equipment should be used. Imposing such a duty would be unduly burdensome and would require manufacturers to vouch for products they do not make. Furthermore, the inclusion of items like protective glasses would not have prevented the injury Mr. Jones suffered to his leg by transferring the product. 5. No, the court grants summary judgment for Amazing Products on the claims that Liquid Fire is so unreasonably dangerous it should not be marketed at all. While Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc. contained dictum hinting at liability for "extreme cases" where a product is simply too dangerous, the court found the facts of this case do not meet the requisite "extremeness." The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) conducted an evaluation and concluded that sulfuric acid drain clearers were no more dangerous, proportionately, than other drain clearers on the market, and the severity of injuries was comparable. The court noted that policy decisions regarding product bans are traditionally made by legislatures and regulatory bodies, not juries, and that submitting such a problematic claim would likely confuse the jury and potentially jeopardize other valid claims. 6. The gross negligence claims related to the container design and inadequate warning communication survive summary judgment because the underlying negligence claims survive. However, the court indicated reluctance to submit them to the jury if they are merely an additional way of casting the existing negligence claims.