## Facts

- John R. Sheckells suffered catastrophic head injuries in a motorcycle crash while wearing a motorcycle helmet manufactured by AGV, S.p.A.
- He lost control after striking road debris while traveling about 45–60 m.p.h.; there was a dispute whether his head struck a post or the ground.
- The helmet included an interior label warning that some reasonably foreseeable impacts may exceed the helmet’s capability to prevent severe injury or death.
- Packaging materials also stated that no helmet can protect against all foreseeable impacts and disclaimed any representation that the helmet would protect against injury or death.
- Charles Sheckells, as father and guardian, sued AGV, S.p.A. and AGV-USA (a U.S. distributor) alleging design defect and failure to warn.
- In opposing summary judgment, plaintiff relied on expert testimony (Dr. Joseph L. Burton) that helmet impact tests were generally conducted at 15–20 m.p.h., that no helmets would prevent serious head injury at 30–45 m.p.h. impacts, and that average purchasers would not know these limitations.
- The district court granted summary judgment to AGV-USA (not in the chain of distribution) and to AGV, S.p.A. on both theories; on appeal, plaintiff abandoned design defect and challenged only failure to warn against AGV, S.p.A.

## Issues

1. Under Georgia failure-to-warn law, whether a helmet manufacturer had a duty to provide a more specific warning about high-speed impact limitations beyond generalized “no helmet protects against all impacts” statements.
2. Whether the adequacy of the warnings and proximate causation presented genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment.
3. Whether a distributor could be liable where undisputed evidence showed it neither manufactured the helmet nor was in the chain of distribution for that helmet.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for AGV-USA because undisputed evidence showed it did not manufacture the helmet and was not in the chain of distribution.
- Treated the design-defect claim against AGV, S.p.A. as abandoned on appeal, leaving summary judgment intact on that theory.
- Reversed summary judgment for AGV, S.p.A. on failure to warn and remanded because the record permitted a jury to find the warnings inadequate and causally related to the injury.
- Held that, on this record, the “obviousness” of the risk and the sufficiency of generalized warnings could not be resolved as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under Georgia law, a manufacturer may be liable for failure to warn if it knows or has reason to know a product is or is likely to be dangerous for its supplied use and fails to exercise reasonable care to inform users of the dangerous condition or facts making it dangerous.
- No duty to warn exists for dangers that are obvious or that the user knows or should know through ordinary care.
- Warning adequacy is commonly a fact question; the existence of some warning does not conclusively establish adequacy where evidence supports competing inferences about specificity and comprehensibility to ordinary users.
- Summary judgment is improper when expert evidence and reasonable inferences could support findings that (1) the risk was not obvious to average consumers, (2) the manufacturer should have warned more specifically, and (3) an adequate warning could have affected user conduct and thereby injury causation.
- A party outside the chain of distribution is not liable as a manufacturer or seller for the product at issue.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit left in place summary judgment for the distributor and the abandoned design-defect theory, but held that expert testimony about testing speeds and consumer knowledge created triable issues under Georgia law on whether the helmet’s generalized warnings were sufficiently specific and whether any inadequacy could have contributed to the rider’s injuries.


Sheckells v. AGV, S.p.A., 987 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1993)