## Facts

- Wentworth and Karen Maynard sued Snapchat, Inc. (now Snap Inc.) and a driver, Christal McGee, after an automobile collision.
- The complaint alleged that on September 10, 2015, McGee used Snapchat’s “Speed Filter,” which displayed a user’s real-time speed on a photo or video for sharing.
- McGee allegedly drove over 100 miles per hour and rear-ended Wentworth Maynard’s vehicle, causing severe injuries.
- The complaint alleged McGee stated she was trying to reach 100 m.p.h. to post using the Speed Filter.
- The Maynards asserted a negligent design claim, alleging the Speed Filter created an unreasonable incentive to drive at dangerous speeds.
- The complaint alleged Snapchat knew or should have known the Speed Filter was being used to record high speeds and that the resulting risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia product-liability law categorically eliminates a manufacturer’s product-design duty when a third party intentionally or tortiously misuses the product.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the risk of harm from the Speed Filter’s use while driving at excessive speeds was reasonably foreseeable, sufficient to plead a design-duty claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the dismissal of the design-defect claim against Snapchat.
- The court held Georgia law imposes a duty on manufacturers to use reasonable care in choosing among alternative designs to reduce reasonably foreseeable risks posed by their products.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that intentional or tortious third-party misuse always negates a manufacturer’s design duty.
- Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court concluded the Maynards adequately alleged that Snapchat could reasonably foresee the specific risk of harm associated with the Speed Filter.
- The case was remanded for the Court of Appeals to address proximate cause and any remaining issues not previously reached.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer has a duty to use reasonable care in product design to reduce reasonably foreseeable risks of harm posed by its product.
- Intentional, negligent, improper, or third-party use does not automatically defeat design duty; such circumstances are considered within the foreseeability analysis.
- If a particular risk of harm is not reasonably foreseeable, no design duty exists to reduce that risk.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, well-pleaded allegations of foreseeability are taken as true; proximate cause is a separate inquiry that may still bar liability.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that alleged intentional misuse by a third party does not categorically eliminate a manufacturer’s product-design duty; instead, duty turns on whether the specific risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable, and the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficed to proceed past dismissal while leaving proximate cause for further review on remand.


Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 313 Ga. 533, 870 S.E.2d 739 (Ga. 2022)