When a vehicle defect caused or worsened a car accident, the manufacturer, parts supplier, or retailer may share liability alongside the at-fault driver. Product liability adds defendants with deep pockets and high insurance limits to the case. But these claims require specialized evidence, expert testimony, and vehicle preservation that standard negligence cases do not demand.
Two Liability Scenarios
Defect caused the crash. Brake failure, tire blowout, sudden unintended acceleration, steering system failure, or an electrical fire that incapacitated the driver. The product defect was the direct or contributing cause of the collision. Without the defect, the accident would not have occurred.
Defect worsened the injuries (crashworthiness). The defect did not cause the accident, but it made the injuries more severe than they would have been in a properly functioning vehicle. An airbag that failed to deploy, a seatbelt that released on impact, a roof that collapsed during a rollover, a fuel system that ruptured and caught fire post-crash, or a seat structure that collapsed rearward during a rear-end collision.
Crashworthiness claims are the more common product liability theory in car accident cases. The plaintiff must prove that the safety system was defective, that a non-defective system would have performed better in the same crash, and that the injuries would have been less severe with a properly functioning safety system. This requires biomechanical expert testimony comparing the actual injury pattern to the expected injury pattern with a functioning system.
Three Types of Product Defects
Design defects affect every unit of the product. The product was manufactured exactly as designed, but the design itself was unreasonably dangerous. An SUV with a center of gravity that makes it prone to rollover during routine evasive maneuvers has a design defect. Under Georgia law, the plaintiff must show that a reasonable alternative design existed that would have reduced the risk without impairing the product’s utility.
Manufacturing defects affect specific units. The design is sound, but a particular vehicle or component was manufactured incorrectly. An airbag inflator assembled with the wrong propellant charge, a tire with a bonding failure in a specific production batch, or a brake caliper with a casting flaw are manufacturing defects. The plaintiff compares the defective unit to the manufacturer’s own specifications.
Warning defects (failure to warn) involve the manufacturer’s failure to provide adequate warnings about known risks. A tire manufacturer that knows its product degrades when exposed to a common tire cleaning chemical and fails to warn consumers has a warning defect. An automaker that knows its vehicle’s electronic stability control has a software vulnerability under specific conditions and fails to issue a service bulletin or recall has a warning defect.
Georgia Product Liability Framework
Georgia’s product liability framework operates primarily under negligence principles, requiring proof that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, or labeling of the product. However, O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 contains elements that function similarly to strict liability in certain contexts: the statute imposes liability when a manufacturer “knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known” of the defect, and the standard for manufacturing defects (where the product departs from its own design specifications) approaches strict liability in practice because the manufacturer’s own specifications establish the standard. Whether Georgia formally recognizes strict liability as a separate cause of action in product cases, as opposed to a negligence framework with strict-liability-like elements, is a nuanced question in Georgia case law that requires case-specific analysis.
The Georgia Code at O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 provides the general product liability framework. Under this statute, a manufacturer is liable for injuries caused by defective products when the manufacturer knew or should have known of the defect.
Vehicle Preservation Is Critical
A defective vehicle is the single most important piece of evidence in a product liability case. If the vehicle is repaired before the defect is documented, the evidence may be destroyed. If the vehicle is scrapped after a total loss declaration, the evidence is gone permanently.
Immediate evidence preservation steps include sending a preservation letter to the repair shop, the insurer (to prevent disposal of a totaled vehicle), and the at-fault driver if the defective vehicle was theirs. No repairs should be authorized to any component suspected of being defective until it has been inspected and documented by an expert. Photographing every component before and during any disassembly creates a record that cannot be recreated once the vehicle is repaired or scrapped.
NHTSA Recalls and Investigations
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) maintains a database of all vehicle recalls, technical service bulletins (TSBs), and consumer complaints at nhtsa.gov. Check whether the specific vehicle make, model, and year has an open recall or investigation related to the component suspected of being defective.
A NHTSA recall is strong evidence that a defect exists and that the manufacturer acknowledged it. The absence of a recall does not mean no defect exists; many defects are identified through litigation before any regulatory action occurs.
For how expert witnesses are qualified in product liability cases under Georgia’s Daubert standard, see Expert Witnesses in Georgia Car Accident Cases.
This guide covers Georgia car accident law as of March 2026. Laws change. This information is educational and does not constitute legal advice. If you need advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.
Last updated: March 2026
