Georgia’s 10-Year Statute of Repose for Product Liability

Under § 51-1-11(b)(2), no strict liability action can be brought for an injury “after ten years from the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the personal property”. The Supreme Court of Georgia says that clock starts when the finished product “is sold as new to the intended consumer who is to receive the product”. It runs whether or not anyone has been hurt yet. So a product can injure someone in year eleven with no strict liability claim ever having existed.

Repose and limitations are different clocks

	Repose, § 51-1-11(b)(2)	Limitations, § 9-3-33
Starts	First sale of the finished product to the intended consumer	The injury, with limited exceptions
Length	Ten years	Two years
Runs before injury?	Yes	No
Rescued by renewal?	No, under Love v. Whirlpool	Separate rules
Minors	§ 9-3-90 speaks of bringing "an action" once of age, so ask about its reach	Tolled under § 9-3-90(b)

Both must be met. A person hurt in year nine can’t wait two years and file in year eleven. Love shows why the difference matters, since renewal didn’t save the case. In Love v. Whirlpool, 264 Ga. 701 (1994), a family suffered a fire in 1990 from a dryer bought in 1981. They filed in 1991, voluntarily dismissed, and renewed in 1992, past ten years. “OCGA § 51-1-11 barred absolutely, but not unconstitutionally, these renewal actions.” The court also upheld the statute against several constitutional attacks.

When the ten years begin

Scenario	Starting point	Decision
Part tested at the factory	Not then	Campbell v. Altec
Part sold to the assembler	Not then	Campbell
Finished truck sold to the utility	Yes	Campbell
Used purchase later	The first sale still counts	Love, where the parties accepted a 1981 date
Product bought repeatedly	Each unit on its own	Burroughs
Trial use, no sale	§ 51-1-11 can apply, and the start date needs thought	Bullock

Campbell v. Altec Industries, 288 Ga. 535 (2011), overruled an earlier decision that started the clock too soon. A cylinder had been tested in January 1998 and the truck delivered no earlier than April 1998. Suit in February 2008 was timely if the April date governed, which it did.

Burroughs v. Strength of Nature Global, 322 Ga. 722 (2025), matters for anything used up and rebought. A woman used hair relaxer for years, and the Court of Appeals had started the clock at her first purchase from each company. The Supreme Court disagreed: “the statute of repose is applied on a per-unit basis”. It “begins to run on each sale of a unit as new to an intended end user”. So purchases inside the ten years aren’t barred merely because older purchases were outside. The Court left open whether older units’ causal role defeats the claim, and it called proof of that a “tricky undertaking”. It also said “[a] legislative solution may well be better.”

What it covers

Subsection (c) applies the same ten-year limit to negligence claims against a manufacturer, with exceptions. Its text refers to “a manufacturer”. So a claim against a seller or repairer for its own conduct isn’t obviously within those words. Ask counsel about that.

Claim	After ten years
Strict liability: design, manufacture	Barred
Negligent design or manufacture, ordinary	Barred
Negligence with reckless or similar conduct	Survives, on proof
Negligence in making a product causing disease or birth defect	Survives
Failure to warn of a known danger	Outside repose, under Chrysler v. Batten
Strict liability warning count	Barred, under PTI Royston v. Eubanks

The exceptions page goes through these. A later statute doesn’t change that. In PTI Royston v. Eubanks, 360 Ga. App. 263 (2021), the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” in the asbestos statute, § 51-14-5, reached limitations only, not repose.

Finding the first sale

A plaintiff may not know the date. These records may show it.

Source	What it shows
Serial or VIN decode	Build date, which isn't the sale date
Dealer or retailer records	Actual first sale
Warranty registration	Purchase date
Title history	First retail owner for a vehicle
Maker's sales database	Delivery to the customer
Fleet or employer purchasing files	First delivery for industrial goods

In Parks v. Hyundai, 294 Ga. App. 112 (2008), a car was assembled in October 1988 and first sold at retail in January 1989, and the January date governed. If the date is close, get it before filing, and don’t rely on the model year. In Chrysler v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723 (1994), a 1978 car and a 1988 crash put a claim right against the limit.

Rebuilt and changed products

The statute doesn’t say that a repair or a rebuild restarts the clock. Campbell focused on when a finished product is first sold new. If a manufacturer rebuilds and resells a machine as new, or a part is replaced with a new one that fails, ask whether that’s a new sale of new property. The part’s own first sale may matter, under a claim against that part’s maker.

Death and repose

A wrongful death claim based on the product still faces the limit in the statute’s wording about actions “with respect to an injury”. Love v. Whirlpool dealt with deaths in the fire and applied the bar. Wrongful death from defective products picks that up.

What to do with an old product

1. Find the first sale date before anything else.
2. If it’s near ten years, file early, since dismissal and renewal may not help.
3. If it’s past ten years, look at warning facts first.
4. Then test for recklessness, and for disease or birth defect.
5. Identify all manufacturers. A newer component may have a later date.
6. Check the two-year limit, and any other limit on the claim separately.

Sources

• Love v. Whirlpool, 264 Ga. 701
• Campbell v. Altec Industries, 288 Ga. 535
• Burroughs v. Strength of Nature Global, 322 Ga. 722
• Robert F. Bullock, Inc. v. Thorpe, 256 Ga. 744
• Chrysler v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723
• PTI Royston v. Eubanks, 360 Ga. App. 263
• Parks v. Hyundai, 294 Ga. App. 112
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 9-3-90, 51-1-11, 51-14-5

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.