Products Liability Law Reporter

A Georgia appellate court held that the social media company Snapchat, Inc., did not owe a duty of care to change its product’s design to prevent the injuries suffered by plaintiffs in a motor vehicle collision.

Christal McGee was driving her family’s car with three other passengers when she began to speed in an attempt to reach 100 mph while recording that speed in a photograph using the Snapchat Speed Filter, a feature that allows Snapchat users to record their speed and overlay this onto a photo or video. McGee then drove into the back of Wentworth and Karen Maynard’s vehicle, injuring them.

The Maynards sued Snapchat, Inc., alleging that its negligent design of the Speed Filter encouraged users to endanger themselves and other motorists. Snapchat moved to dismiss the complaint or for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Snapchat had no duty to change the design of its mobile application to prevent McGee from driving negligently and recklessly. The plaintiffs appealed.

Affirming, the appellate court found that the plaintiffs’ negligent design claim does not fall within Snapchat’s duty of care. The plaintiffs allege that their injuries were caused by McGee’s misuse of the Speed Filter while driving at an excessive speed, thus Snapchat’s liability was predicated on McGee’s conduct. Citing case law, the court found that absent a special relationship, there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from harming others. A manufacturer has no general duty to prevent people from committing torts while misusing the manufacturer’s product, the court added, noting that the Speed Filter feature does not offer a specific reward system or a status ranking for misuse while driving or engaging in other risky behavior. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant’s design created an inherent incentive to engage in risky behavior, noting that virtually any product is capable of causing an injury when misused.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ cause of action had been properly dismissed.

Citation: Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 2020 WL 6375424 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2020).