The Plaintiffs Keep Getting Richer, the Manufacturers Just Stay Poor: Design Defect Litigation in Georgia Post-Banks

How much proof of a reasonable alternative design is necessary to survive a claim for defective design and when should proof of a reasonable alternative design be denied as irrelevant to claims pertaining to products that exhibit open and obvious dangers? Design defect litigation is particularly important because it involves claims that take entire product lines out of the market and cost manufacturers exorbitant losses and expose them to steep damages. In these cases, plaintiffs often suffer life- changing injuries or death. In this Note, I provide a history of design defect litigation in the United States. In particular,I focus on the legal developments leading up to the implementation of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Then, I address critical reactions to the requirement of the reasonable alternative design in the Restatement (Third). Finally, I focus on the development of strict liability in Georgia by examining key cases therein. I address the myriad of requirements that Georgia courts hold as necessary for plaintiffs to prove a reasonably alternative design. I further argue that the Banks-factor test has swung too far in favor of plaintiffs and produced uncertainty in the application of proof of a reasonable alternative design. I conclude that the Banks-factor test is merely repackaged negligence and suggest that the new rule of law should be interpreted to require a lessened showing of alternative design known as the feasible alternative design. This test can be likened to a quasi- strict liability test for defective design in products liability cases