Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > March > 27 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.US‘Life belt’ bill has new chrome — an amendment to discourage product liability lawsuits
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
We’re in the dangerous, final days of the Legislature’s winter session, during which bills get married to amendments of an entirely different species.
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association has spotted one.
S.B. 412, sponsored by state Sen. Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur), a car dealer, began innocuously enough. This legislation would change “seat belts” to “life belts” in Georgia law books. “Air bags” would be known as “life bags.”
Jones’ measure is now sporting some very strange chrome. The amendment would severely restrict product liability lawsuits in Georgia. The entire bill goes before the House motor vehicles committee at 2 p.m. today.
To read the amendment, go to the jump:
“Any claim against a manufacturer for a defective product under this Code section shall require proof that the manufacturer made the actual product alleged to have caused the injury and that that the product was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff. Proof that a manufacturer made or sold the same type or category of product alleged to be defective shall not satisfy the requirements of this Code section. A manufacturer shall not be held liable for the manufacture of a defective product based on theories of market share, enterprise, risk contribution, or other theories of industry-wide liability or on the basis that the product or its use constitutes a public nuisance.”
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Analchord
March 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Sen. Jones uses the term “bag” as if he knew my wife very well. Take my bag, please.
By fat guy
March 27, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
That bill now has two unrelated subject matters. That makes the whole bill unconstitutional under the state constitution. If it passes and is challenged, the court should void it.
By Dave
March 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
If they modify the same section of code, the amendment is germane and thus is good to go.
By fat guy
March 28, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
They don’t amend the same Code section, and that’s no relevant anyway. The question is commonality of subject matter, and I see no relationship between what we call a seat belt and the trial of product liability cases. The question of germainness is procedural and become moot after a bill passes, but the question of muntiple subject matter is constitutional and dever goes away. A challenge should be a slam dunk.
By ViewFromMidtown
March 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
While I would oppose the bill in any form, with or without the amendment, the amendment refers to that code section which specifically discusses requirements for safety belts in vehicles, so the liability limitation would be for air bag, safety belt, and vehicle manufacturers required to have such devices in their products; it would not be a general product liability limitation.