Products Liability Law Reporter

The Georgia Supreme Court held that that the social media company Snapchat, Inc., had a duty to use reasonable care in selecting from alternative designs to reduce foreseeable risks to users of its product.

Christal McGee used the Snapchat Speed Filter, a feature that allowed Snapchat users to record their speed while driving and overlay this onto a photo or video. While traveling at over 100 mph, McGee drove into the back of Wentworth Maynard’s vehicle, injuring him. Maynard and his wife sued Snapchat, Inc., alleging that its negligent design of the Speed Filter encouraged users to endanger themselves and other motorists. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had owed them a duty to use ordinary care in designing its products, including the Speed Filter, and that the company had breached that duty.

Snapchat moved to dismiss the complaint or for judgment on the pleadings. The defendant asserted that its terms of use required users to agree not to use Snapchat for any illegal or unauthorized purpose and that the company warned users not to Snap and drive. 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, and an intermediate appellate court held that Snapchat did not owe a legal duty to Maynard.

Reversing, the state high court noted that under Georgia law, a manufacturer who sells a product has a duty to ensure the product does not have a design defect. Citing case law, the court added that when designing a product, a manufacturer must exercise reasonable care in selecting from alternative product designs to reduce the reasonably foreseeable risks of harm presented by the product. Whether a manufacturer breached its design duty turns on whether it failed to adopt a reasonable, safe design that would have reduced the foreseeable risks of harm presented by the product, the court said.

Applying these principles, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendant owed a design duty regarding the risk of harm here, specifically that a driver would suffer injury resulting from another person’s use of the Speed Filter while speeding. The court held that it could not state as a matter of law that the plaintiffs could not introduce evidence that when designing the Speed Filter, Snapchat could reasonably foresee that the product’s design created a risk of car crashes like the one here, triggering a duty for the company to use reasonable care in designing the product.

The court also found that Georgia case law provides no exception to a manufacturer’s design duty in cases involving intentional misuse or third-party tortious use of a product. Such factors may be important considerations in determining the extent of a manufacturer’s duty and whether a breach of that duty caused alleged harm, the court noted, adding that pretrial adjudication of such issues at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment stages may be warranted in certain cases. Moreover, the court said, doctrines of comparative negligence and apportionment will limit a manufacturer’s liability in cases where a jury finds fault with the conduct of both a product user and its manufacturer.

Consequently, the court remanded the case to the lower appellate court for a determination of whether the trial court had erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.

Citation: Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 2022 WL 779733 (Ga. Mar. 15, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Naveen Ramachandrappa, Michael B. Terry, Amanda K. Seals, AAJ member Michael L. Neff, AAJ member Darryl D. Adams, AAJ member Susan M. Cremer, AAJ member Timothy S. Peagler, and Todd R. Henningsen, all of Atlanta.

Amici curiae counsel: AAJ member Brian DeVoe Rogers, AAJ member Lyle G. Warshauer, Paul I. Hotchkiss, and AAJ member N. John Bey, all of Atlanta; AAJ member Jonathan A. Pope, Gainesville, Ga.; and AAJ member Andrew S. Ashby, Marietta, Ga.