Industrial Equipment and Workplace Product Liability

A Georgia worker hurt by industrial equipment can sue the machine’s maker even though the employer is protected by the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy. The real fight can be about what happened to the machine after it left the factory: who changed it, who chose not to buy the safety option, and how long it’s been in service. The decisions below turned on those facts. How compensation benefits, liens, and the employer’s fault share work is covered on defective equipment.

What the machine cases have turned on

Decision	Machine	Issue	Result
Dean v. Toyota Industrial (2000)	Forklift, no reverse alarm	Employer declined the option	Jury question for the worker
Boyce v. Gregory Poole (2004)	Stand-up forklift, no rear guard	Dealer's advice, and a maker's role	Dealer faces negligence, not strict liability
Ogletree v. Navistar (1998, 1999)	Spreader truck, no alarm	Open and obvious danger	Jury question
Talley v. City Tank (1981)	Garbage truck rebuilt by a city	Design replaced	Maker won
Woods v. A.R.E. Accessories (2018)	Truck cap, custom slide-out bed	Unforeseeable misuse	Maker won
Campbell v. Altec (2011)	Bucket truck, failed cylinder	When repose starts	Worker's suit timely on that rule
Robert F. Bullock v. Thorpe (1987)	Fryer on trial in a restaurant	No completed sale	§ 51-1-11 applied

The optional safety device

Employers sometimes decline a guard or alarm that the maker offers. In Dean v. Toyota Industrial Equipment, 246 Ga. App. 255 (2000), a dealer asked about an optional reverse alarm, and the employer said no. A worker was struck. An expert said an alarm was needed where forklifts and people share space, and that it cost $30 to $100 on a machine of about $20,000. “Where there is some evidence that the risk caused by not having an alarm outweighed the utility of the forklift in not having an alarm, the issue of negligent design cannot be decided as a matter of law.” The customer’s choice didn’t end the case.

Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equipment, 269 Ga. App. 891 (2004), adds the seller’s side. A worker bled to death after the raised forks of a parked lift entered the operator’s compartment. The dealer wasn’t liable as a manufacturer. But it had visited, advised, and given material that left a bad impression of the optional gate, so negligence and misrepresentation went to the jury.

These need the machine’s order paperwork. Get the quote, options list, and any correspondence about the option.

Changes made in the plant

Change	Likely argument	Who has records
Guard removed	Foreseeable, so a design question	Maintenance, supervisors
Interlock bypassed	Foreseeable misuse, or the employer's act	Maintenance logs
Part replaced with a non-original	Who supplied it, and is it the cause?	Purchasing
System redesigned	Cut off under Talley	Engineering
Attachment added	Foreseeable or not?	Whoever installed it

The two poles are clear. Talley v. City Tank, 158 Ga. App. 130 (1981), involved a lift whose original design was “totally eliminated and replaced”. There, the maker owed no duty, even to warn. Woods v. A.R.E. Accessories, A18A0292 (2018), concerned an add-on nine days old. In between, “reasonably foreseeable product use or misuse is a factor” under the risk-utility test. So show why this change was predictable, such as complaints that the guard slowed work.

Commercial buyers and warnings

Warnings run into a defense specific to industry. Exxon v. Jones, 209 Ga. App. 373 (1993), quotes a rule that “[w]here the product is vended to a particular group or profession, the manufacturer is not required to warn against risks generally known to such group or profession”. It also quotes Omark v. Alewine on a product sold to a commercial operator. So the defense will say your employer or trade already knew. The answer is that this specific risk wasn’t generally known, or that the worker wasn’t told. Failure to warn has more.

Exposure on the job

Dust, chemicals, and fibers raise separate questions. John Crane v. Jones, 278 Ga. 747 (2004), involved a worker exposed to asbestos from eight companies’ products. It approved a “contributing factor” instruction, and Scapa Dryer Fabrics v. Knight, 299 Ga. 286 (2016), later explained that an exposure must make “a meaningful contribution”. A family member exposed through work clothes may have a design claim but not a warning claim, under CertainTeed v. Fletcher, 300 Ga. 327 (2016). Disease also matters for the repose exceptions.

Old machines

Industrial machines can outlast the ten-year period in § 51-1-11(b)(2). Under Campbell v. Altec Industries, 288 Ga. 535 (2011), the clock starts when the finished product is “sold as new to the intended consumer”, there, the utility that bought the truck. A later resale doesn’t restart it. Look for these:

• the plate on the machine and its serial number;
• the original invoice and the dealer’s file;
• rebuilds or added components, with their own dates;
• recall or retrofit notices the maker sent.

A warning claim may remain after ten years, under Chrysler v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723 (1994). A retrofit program may also show what the maker knew. See the repose.

OSHA and industry standards

An OSHA citation aimed at the employer isn’t proof against the maker. A standard may still show what the industry knew about a hazard. Banks says that compliance with “industry-wide practices, state of the art, or federal regulations does not eliminate conclusively” a maker’s liability, and private rules are, in the words of Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly Southern, 173 Ga. App. 177, “admissible as illustrative of negligence”. Ask an expert which standard applied when the machine was made.

Who else might be named

A worker can’t sue the employer in tort, and co-employees may be protected too, as co-employee immunity explains. So look at the rest of the chain.

Party	Theory
Maker of the finished machine	Strict liability, negligence
Maker of a failed component	Strict liability, negligence
Successor company	Mere continuation, under Farmex
Dealer or integrator	Own negligence, including advice
Service contractor	Negligent repair
Site owner or another contractor	Check § 34-9-8 before assuming

Statutory employer status can bar a claim against a contractor up the chain, so check that first. A workplace death adds family claims.

The first days

The machine may go back into service quickly. Ask the employer in writing to hold it and let an engineer inspect, and ask counsel about a court order if needed. Get the incident report, any OSHA file, the maintenance log, and witness names. Your compensation claim runs on its own deadlines. The tort claim has two years under § 9-3-33, and § 34-9-11.1(c) gives the employer or insurer certain rights if the employee hasn’t sued within a year.

Sources

• Dean v. Toyota Industrial Equipment, 246 Ga. App. 255
• Boyce v. Gregory Poole Equipment, 269 Ga. App. 891
• Ogletree v. Navistar, 269 Ga. 443
• Talley v. City Tank, 158 Ga. App. 130
• Woods v. A.R.E. Accessories, A18A0292
• Campbell v. Altec Industries, 288 Ga. 535
• Robert F. Bullock, Inc. v. Thorpe, 256 Ga. 744
• Exxon v. Jones, 209 Ga. App. 373
• John Crane v. Jones, 278 Ga. 747
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics v. Knight, 299 Ga. 286
• CertainTeed v. Fletcher, 300 Ga. 327
• Chrysler v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723
• Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732
• Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly Southern, 173 Ga. App. 177
• Farmex v. Wainwright, 269 Ga. 548
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 34-9-8, 34-9-11.1, 51-1-11

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.