Chrysler Corp. v. Batten

• Decision Date: 05 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. S94G0425,S94G0425
• Citation: 264 Ga. 723,450 S.E.2d 208
• Parties: , 63 USLW 2444, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,106 CHRYSLER CORPORATION v. BATTEN et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 208

450 S.E.2d 208

264 Ga. 723, 63 USLW 2444, Prod.Liab.Rep.

(CCH) P 14,106

CHRYSLER CORPORATION v. BATTEN et al.

No. S94G0425.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 5, 1994.

Reconsideration Denied Dec. 20, 1994.

Joe C. Freeman, Jr., Stephen M. Lore, Charles R. Beans, Freeman & Hawkins, Atlanta, Terry A. Dillard, Bryant H. Bower, Jr., Dillard, Bower & East, Waycross, for Chrysler Corp.

Berrien L. Sutton, Sutton & Associates, Homerville, Ronald W. Hallman, Hallman & Associates, Claxton, for Batten et al.

Chilton Davis Varner, King & Spalding, Atlanta, amicus curiae.

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Patricia Batten was driving a Chrysler LeBaron purchased in May 1978 when she was injured in a two-car collision in October 1988. Batten and her husband brought suit against Chrysler Corporation and the driver of the other vehicle in 1990 seeking damages for her injuries and his loss of consortium. Included among the allegations as to Chrysler were claims under both strict liability and negligence theories that the seat belt mechanism in the LeBaron was defectively designed and that Chrysler negligently failed to warn of the danger posed by the defectively-designed seat belt. Chrysler moved for summary judgment, which was granted solely on the basis that plaintiffs' complaint was barred by the statute of repose. OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2) and (c). The Court of Appeals reversed as to the claims sounding in negligence. Batten v. Chrysler Corp., 211 Ga.App. 173, 438 S.E.2d 647 (1993). Writ of certiorari was granted to consider the Court of Appeals' opinion.

1. The complaint in this case sets forth two separate causes of action in negligence: one based on the sale of a defective product and the other based on the failure to warn of a danger arising from the use of that product. Accord Mack Trucks v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 540(1), 436 S.E.2d 635 (1993) (negligent failure to warn is a negligence theory of products liability recognized under final sentence in OCGA § 51-1-11(c)). The distinction between these causes of action reflects the different duties that devolve upon manufacturers. While a manufacturer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing its products so as to make products that are reasonably safe for intended or foreseeable uses, see generally Greenway v. Peabody International Corp., 163 Ga.App. 698, 294 S.E.2d 541 (1982), "the manufacturer of a product which, to its actual or constructive knowledge, involves danger to users, has a duty to give warning of such danger. [Cit.]" Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga.App. 331, 335, 319 S.E.2d 470 (1984). See also Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterm. Co., 192 Ga.App. 778, 780(2)(b), 386 S.E.2d 696 (1989). Breach of these different duties hence gives rise to separate and distinct claims. While a factual overlap between these claims is possible, in that some products are defective solely due to an inadequate or absent warning, e.g., Continental Research Corp. v. Reeves, 204 Ga.App. 120, 419 S.E.2d 48 (1992); see also 2 American Law of Products Liability 3d § 28:10, the claims are not necessarily coextensive, see, e.g., Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732, 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994) (design defect claim viable although failure to warn claim preempted by federal law), and factual distinctions between the two claims are readily apparent in those cases where the duty to warn of a danger arises from a manufacturer's post-sale knowledge acquired months, years, or even decades after the date of the first sale of the product. See Mack Trucks, supra; see also, e.g., Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 601 A.2d 633(II) (1992); Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261, 473 N.Y.S.2d 378, 461 N.E.2d 864(III) (1984).

In failure to warn cases, the duty to warn arises whenever the manufacturer knows or reasonably should know of the danger arising from the use of its product. Stiltjes, supra; Stubblefield, supra; see also Maleski, Ga. Products Liability (2nd ed.), §§ 1-5, 7-1. An actual or constructive knowledge requirement is consonant with Georgia tort law in general, see, e.g., Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980) (premises liability); Kemp v. Rouse-Atlanta, 207 Ga.App. 876, 429 S.E.2d 264 (1993) (negligent hiring and/or retention), and is in accord with the position taken by foreign jurisdictions and legal treatises. See, e.g., Cover, supra, 473 N.Y.S.2d at 385, 461 N.E.2d at 871; Hermes v. Pfizer, Inc., 848 F.2d 66(A) (5th Cir.1988); see also Restatement (2nd) of Torts, § 402A, Comment j (seller is required to give warning "if he has knowledge, or by the application of reasonable, developed human skill and foresight should have knowledge" of the danger, id. at p. 353); Prosser and Keeton, The Law of Torts (5th ed.), § 96(2).

2. OCGA § 51-1-11 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b)(2) No action shall be commenced pursuant to this subsection with respect to an injury after ten years from the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the personal property causing or otherwise bringing about the injury.

....

(c) The limitation of [subsection (b)(2) ] regarding bringing an action within ten years from the date of the first sale for use or consumption of personal property shall also apply to the commencement of an action claiming negligence of a manufacturer as the basis of liability, except an action seeking to recover from a manufacturer for injuries or damages arising out of the negligence of such manufacturer in manufacturing products which cause a disease or birth defect, or arising out of conduct which manifests a willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property. Nothing contained in this subsection shall relieve a manufacturer from the duty to warn of a danger arising from use of a product once that danger becomes known to the manufacturer.

The ten-year statute of repose was enacted in order to address problems generated by the open-ended liability of manufacturers so as to eliminate stale claims and stabilize products liability underwriting. Love v. Whirlpool Corp., 264 Ga. 701(1), 449 S.E.2d 602 (1994). Hence, strict liability actions filed more than ten years after the "date of the first sale for use or consumption of" the product are completely barred. OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2); Hatcher v. Allied Products Corp., 256 Ga. 100(1), 344 S.E.2d 418 (1986). Subsection (c) ¹ extends the ten-year statute of repose to negligence actions, but differs from subsection (b)(2) by providing for two exceptions to the statute of repose, i.e., where the manufacturer's negligence resulted in a product causing disease or birth defect, or where the injuries or damages arose out of conduct manifesting a "willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property." See Love, supra. Where either of these exceptions applies, a plaintiff is authorized to maintain his or her cause of action based on the sale of a defective product notwithstanding the fact that the action is initiated more than ten years from "the date of the first sale." OCGA § 51-1-11(c).

3. As to plaintiffs' claims based on the 1978 sale of the LeBaron automobile with its allegedly defectively-designed seat belt retractor mechanism, the claims accrued after the enactment of OCGA § 51-1-11(c), compare Browning v. Maytag Corp., 261 Ga. 20, 401 S.E.2d 725 (1991), and thus are barred unless sufficient evidence was adduced to create a fact question whether Chrysler's conduct manifested a "willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life" so as to bring the claims within this exception to the statute of repose.

"Wilful conduct is based on an actual intention to do harm or inflict injury; wanton conduct is that which is so reckless or so charged with indifference to the consequences ... [as to be the] equivalent in spirit to actual intent." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hendon v. DeKalb County, 203 Ga.App. 750, 758, 417 S.E.2d 705 (1992). See also Poole v. City of Louisville, 107 Ga.App. 305, 307, 130 S.E.2d 157 (1963).

Reviewing the evidence of wilful, reckless, or wanton conduct with respect to the seat belt mechanism in the 1978 LeBaron, the record reveals that the documents from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") on which plaintiffs rely pertain to the 1975 seat belt retractor mechanism which was redesigned (albeit with minor modifications) following the NHTSA investigation. While these documents may be some evidence of a defect in the 1975 seat belt, they are of little significance in evaluating Chrysler's culpability in incorporating the redesigned seat belt mechanism into the 1978 LeBaron.

Similarly, the testimony of plaintiffs' expert witness, Billy Peterson, was insufficient to establish the requisite wilful, reckless, or wanton conduct with respect to the 1978 seat belt mechanism. Peterson's opinion was based exclusively on the alleged defect in the 1975 mechanism, as demonstrated by his statement that he had no information other than the 1988 accident to suggest that the modifications made to the 1975 mechanism were ineffective or failed to correct the earlier problems.

This evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that Chrysler's conduct manifested a "willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property." OCGA § 51-1-11(c). See generally Louisville &amp Nashville R. Co. v. Young, 112 Ga.App. 608, 613-614, 145 S.E.2d 700 (1965). Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Chrysler on plaintiffs' claims arising out of the 1978 sale of the LeBaron automobile. Trammell v. Baird, 262 Ga. 124, 126, 413 S.E.2d 445 (1992).

4. We now address application of the statute of repose to the failure-to-warn claim. All statutes are presumed to be enacted by the legislature with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law, including decisions of the courts. Leonard v. Benjamin, 253 Ga. 718, 719, 324 S.E.2d 185 (1985). With this presumption in mind, we consider the final sentence in OCGA § 51-1-11(c):

Nothing contained...