JOHNS v. SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., 310 Ga. 159

Background

In August 2013 Adrian Johns suffered catastrophic front-brake failure on a Suzuki motorcycle; evidence at trial showed a design defect in the front master cylinder produced corrosive leakage and total brake failure. Suzuki issued a recall about two months after the accident and had prior notice of related reports. Adrian had not changed brake fluid for eight years contrary to manual instructions.
Plaintiffs sued SMC and SMAI asserting strict products liability (design defect) and two negligence claims; Gwen Johns asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
A jury awarded $10.5 million to Adrian and $2 million to Gwen and apportioned fault 49% to Adrian, 45% to SMC, and 6% to SMAI; the trial court reduced awards under OCGA § 51-12-33(a) to reflect Adrian’s 49% share and denied pre-judgment interest because post-apportionment awards were below the pretrial demand.
The Johnses argued on appeal that comparative-fault apportionment under OCGA § 51-12-33(a) does not apply to strict products liability claims; the Court of Appeals rejected that argument and the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
The Georgia Supreme Court held that OCGA § 51-12-33(a) and (g) apply to strict products liability claims (and derivative loss-of-consortium awards), supplanting pre-2005 decisional law that had generally barred contributory/comparative negligence in strict-liability cases; the trial court’s apportionment and denial of pre-judgment interest were affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCGA § 51-12-33(a) (comparative-fault apportionment) applies to strict products liability claims under OCGA § 51-1-11	Johns: § 51-12-33(a) should not apply to strict liability because pre-2005 Georgia precedent forbids contributory/comparative negligence in strict-products cases	Suzuki: § 51-12-33(a) is textually broad and governs any action for injury to person, including strict products liability; plaintiffs could have requested separated verdicts	Held: § 51-12-33(a) and (g) apply to strict products liability claims; statute supplants pre-2005 common-law rule
Whether a derivative loss-of-consortium award is exempt from apportionment	Johns: loss-of-consortium is derivative of strict-liability claim and should not be reduced	Suzuki: derivative recovery is subject to same apportionment as the primary claim	Held: Derivative loss-of-consortium award is subject to apportionment under § 51-12-33(a)
Whether pre-2005 cases barring plaintiff fault in strict liability survive the 2005 statute	Johns: earlier decisions remain controlling as to strict liability	Suzuki: 2005 enactment changed the law and displaced contrary decisional law	Held: The 2005 statute displaced the prior no-comparative-negligence holdings; statutes control absent constitutional conflict
Whether the plaintiffs’ failure to request a differentiated verdict preserved their argument	Johns: the jury’s single damages award should be treated as all for strict-liability claim	Suzuki: plaintiffs should have required a split verdict to preserve the argument	Held: Court did not need to decide because statute applies; it noted plaintiffs’ preservation arguments were unnecessary to resolve the case

Key Cases Cited

Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (2015) (explaining § 51-12-33 codifies comparative negligence principles)
Couch v. Red Roof Inns, 291 Ga. 359 (2012) (statute applies broadly to actions for injury and can displace decisional law)
Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 Ga. 657 (1977) (plurality) (describing strict liability as imposing liability irrespective of negligence)
Deere & Co. v. Brooks, 250 Ga. 517 (1983) (recognizing that contributory negligence historically was not a defense to strict products liability)
Alexander v. Gen. Motors Corp., 267 Ga. 339 (1996) (noting that strict liability eliminates usual negligence defenses in many respects)
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Loudermilk, 305 Ga. 558 (2019) (statutory text governs and apportionment framework survives where fault is divisible)