## Facts

- A 1986 Ford Bronco II rolled over in a single-vehicle accident on November 18, 1994, after the driver briefly left the roadway, overcorrected, and the vehicle rolled approximately two and one-half times.
- Occupants included driver Joseph Washo and passengers Brian Watkins, Stacy Purcell, and Rachelle Oliver.
- Brian Watkins died from a head injury; Oliver suffered severe head injuries and multiple fractures; Washo and Purcell were also injured.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Bronco II was defectively designed for handling and stability and that Ford failed to warn of known rollover risks.
- Plaintiffs sued Ford in federal court under Georgia products-liability law; Ford sought summary judgment based on Georgia’s 10-year statute of repose measured from first sale.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Ford, concluding the design-based claims were time-barred and treating the failure-to-warn theory as barred as well.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute that Ford acted with “willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for property or life,” bringing the design-defect claim within Georgia’s statutory exception to the product-liability statute of repose.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claim was an independent theory (including a post-sale duty to warn) not barred by Georgia’s product-liability statute of repose.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held a fact question existed on whether Ford’s conduct met the “willful, reckless, or wanton” standard, so the design-defect claim could proceed under the statutory exception.
- The court held the failure-to-warn claim was not merely a repackaged design-defect claim and was not barred by the statute of repose.
- The court left warning adequacy and causation questions for the factfinder rather than resolving them as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Georgia’s product-liability statute generally bars manufacturer product-liability claims brought more than ten years after first sale, but does not bar claims if the manufacturer acted with “willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for property or life.”
- Evidence that a manufacturer knew of serious safety risks and chose less safe, cheaper design measures can be sufficient to create a jury question under the willful/reckless/wanton exception.
- A failure-to-warn theory may be legally distinct from a design-defect theory, including where it rests on an ongoing or post-sale duty to warn based on continuing knowledge of product hazards.
- The adequacy of warnings and whether improved warnings would have changed user conduct and prevented injury are commonly fact questions not suitable for summary judgment on a contested record.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to require a jury determination on whether Ford’s conduct satisfied Georgia’s willful/reckless/wanton exception to the statute of repose for the design-defect claim, and it further held that the failure-to-warn claim was an independent theory, not barred by the repose provision, warranting remand for further proceedings.


Watkins v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 1999)