Supreme Court Holds Apportionment Extends to Strict Products Liability Claims

On October 19, 2020, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an opinion in Johns et al. v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. et al., Case No. S19G1478, affirming the Court of Appeals’ determination that Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(a), applies to strict products liability claims under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11.

The case stemmed from a motorcycle accident which injured Adrien Johns after his front brake failed. He sued the designer and manufacturer of the motorcycle asserting a strict products liability claim based on design defect and negligence claims. His wife sued for loss of consortium. At trial, the jury awarded $10.5 million in compensatory damages to Adrien and another $2 million to his wife. The jury apportioned 49% of the fault to Adrien (who admittedly had not changed the brake fluid during the 8 years he owned the motorcycle) and 51% to the defendants. Because damages were less than the Johnses’ pretrial demand, the trial court rejected their request for prejudgment interest. The Johnses appealed and argued the trial court erred in reducing damages for a strict products liability claim. They presented several arguments why apportionment should not apply to strict products liability claims, all of which were rejected. In particular, the Supreme Court found the language of the apportionment statute was broad making it unnecessary to expressly mention application to strict products liability claims. The Supreme Court also refused to imply an exception for strict products liability claims based on prior caselaw holding comparative negligence did not apply to strict products liability claims. The Supreme Court held any such precedent was supplanted by enactment of the apportionment statute.