Source: https://www.atlantainjurylawyerblog.com/manufacturers-duty-warn-consumers/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:10:34+00:00

Document:
The burden to show proximate causation is extremely low in a failure to warn case. All the plaintiff must show is that had there been an appropriate warning, the plaintiff would have read it and considered it and that would have resulted in nonuse of the product. Plaintiff need show nothing more to get to a jury. In Morris v. Harley Davidson Co., 2010 WL 2723079 (M.D. Ga. 2010), the court upheld the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a plaintiff’s failure to warn claims. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant breached its duty to warn by failing to communicate the warnings adequately regarding the dangers of the motorcycle so that an operator could read and understand them. Id. at 7. There were no warnings on the motorcycle that alerted a user that it was rated to carry only 420 pounds. Id. at 6. The court allowed the plaintiff to testify that he would have understood warnings about overloading the motorcycle if such warnings had been adequately communicated to him. Id. The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the failure to warn proximately caused the accident, because the record established that the plaintiff did not read any of the warnings in the owner’s manual, however he testified that he would have understood any warning if it had been adequately communicated to him. Id. at 10. Under Georgia law, Plaintiff does not even have to have an expert to establish a failure to warn claim. See Wright v. Case Corp., 2006 WL 278384 at 8 (N.D. Ga., Feb. 1, 2006) (court denying summary judgment or a failure to warn claim even though there was a lack of expert testing).
The quantum of evidence a plaintiff must produce to on causation to get to a jury is de minimis under Georgia law. There simply must be “some evidence” that plaintiff, had he been properly warned, would not have used the product. See Ford Motor Co. v. Gibson, 283 Ga. 398, 403, 659 S.E.2d 346, 351 (2008)(“as there exists some evidence from which a jury could conclude that Ms. Gibson was unaware of (and could not have obviously known about) the potential dangers posed by the Marquis, that Ford was aware of the dangers and failed to adequately warn Ms. Gibson of them, and that the very dangers of which Ford failed to warn Ms. Gibson came to fruition during the car accident that ultimately killed her, this argument is without merit.); Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga. App. 331, 336, 319 S.E.2d 470, 477 (1984)(“The evidence showing knowledge on the part of Ford of a potentially unsafe condition and the marketing of the product with such knowledge and without adequate warning to users was sufficient to carry the issues of negligence and proximate cause to the jury.”); Stapleton v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 608 F.2d 571, 573 (5th Cir. 1979) opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 612 F.2d 905 (5th Cir. 1980)(“Whether adequate efforts were made to communicate a warning to the ultimate user and whether the warning if communicated was adequate are uniformly held questions for the jury.”) cited in Reynolds v. General Motors Corp., WL 4498921(N.D. Ga.)(2008).
So “failure to warn” claims are alive in well in Georgia and continue to be a path to force manufacturers to change their conduct and make their products safer. Stay safe out there, Georgia!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.