Sheckells v. Agv-Usa Corporation
987 F.2d 1532 (1993)
Rule of Law:
Under Georgia product liability law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers of dangers associated with its product that are known or should be known to the manufacturer, unless those dangers are open or obvious to the average user.
Facts:
- John Sheckells was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle after striking debris in the road.
- At the time of the accident, John Sheckells was wearing a helmet manufactured by AGV.
- The AGV helmet contained an internal warning label stating that "some reasonably foreseeable impacts may exceed this helmet's capability to protect against severe injury or death."
- The helmet was also packaged with a consumer notice that stated "NO HELMET, including your AGV helmet, can protect the wearer against all foreseeable impacts" and disclaimed any warranty or representation as to the product's ability to protect from injury or death.
- Dr. Joseph L. Burton, the Chief Medical Examiner for the City of Atlanta, testified that Department of Transportation and Snell Memorial Foundation impact tests are conducted at speeds of only 15 to 20 miles an hour.
- Dr. Burton further opined that no motorcycle helmet marketed today provides assurance of protecting the wearer from facial or brain injury at speeds of 30 or 45 miles an hour, and that the average purchaser would not know these facts.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Sheckells, as the natural father and guardian of John Sheckells, an incapacitated adult, filed a product liability lawsuit against AGV and AGV-USA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- The lawsuit alleged that the AGV helmet was defectively designed and manufactured, and that the defendants failed to warn that the helmet would not provide significant protection from certain reasonably foreseeable impacts.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of AGV-USA on the ground that it did not manufacture the helmet and was not part of the chain of distribution.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of AGV on all claims, including the failure to warn theory, based on the conclusion that it was open and obvious that the AGV helmet would not protect an operator traveling at 30 to 45 miles an hour.
- Charles Sheckells appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of AGV to the Eleventh Circuit, abandoning his theory of defective design and appealing only upon the failure to warn theory.
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, when applied to a failure-to-warn claim, permit a court to grant summary judgment to a motorcycle helmet manufacturer on the ground that the limited protection provided by the helmet at speeds of 30 to 45 miles per hour is an "open or obvious" danger to the average consumer, even when expert testimony suggests otherwise?
Opinions:
Majority - Birch, Circuit Judge
No, Georgia law does not permit summary judgment for a motorcycle helmet manufacturer based on the "open or obvious" danger defense when expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding the average consumer's awareness of the helmet's limitations at certain speeds. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment regarding the failure to warn claim, while affirming the grant of summary judgment on the defective design claim (which was not appealed). Under Georgia law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn if it knows or has reason to know a product is dangerous for its intended use, has no reason to believe users will realize the danger, and fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them. This duty does not apply if the danger is "open or obvious." The district court erred by concluding as a matter of law that the limited protection of the helmet at 30-45 mph was an open or obvious danger. Dr. Burton's expert testimony explicitly stated that the average helmet buyer would not know that no helmet protects against facial or brain injury at 30-45 mph speeds and that a warning was needed to educate users and dispel a false sense of security. This testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the danger was open or obvious to the average purchaser. The court distinguished this case from prior Georgia cases where the absence of a safety feature was visually apparent. The court also found genuine issues of material fact regarding proximate cause (John Sheckells's memory loss from the accident made it uncertain if he read the warnings) and the adequacy of the existing warnings (general statements about not protecting against "all foreseeable impacts" might not adequately convey the specific lack of protection at median/high speeds, especially for a product described as "the single most important piece of safety equipment").
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Georgia's "open or obvious danger" defense in product liability, particularly for safety equipment. It establishes that expert testimony regarding average consumer awareness can create a material factual dispute, thus precluding summary judgment, even for perceived inherent dangers. The ruling reinforces that manufacturers bear a significant burden to provide clear and specific warnings about product limitations, especially when a product is marketed for safety, if there is reason to believe consumers may have a false sense of security or lack specific technical knowledge.
