The ten-year statute of repose under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(2) ends most product liability claims after a decade. But three categories of claims survive past that limit under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(c). Each exception responds to a specific category of cases where the repose would produce unjust results.
| Exception (§ 51-1-11(c)) | What it preserves | Typical case examples |
|---|---|---|
| Long-latency disease or birth defect | Negligence claims for disease/birth defect manifesting after 10 years | Asbestos mesothelioma, certain pharmaceutical injuries, reproductive toxins, prenatal exposure cases |
| Willful, reckless, or wanton conduct | Negligence claims based on elevated culpability | Manufacturer concealment of known risks, continued sale after learning of serious defects, regulatory deception |
| Continuing duty to warn | Negligence claims based on post-sale warning failures | Manufacturer learned of risks after sale and did not warn known purchasers, recall failures |
All three exceptions preserve negligence claims only. Strict liability claims under § 51-1-11(b)(2) remain barred by the flat ten-year limit.
Three exceptions are codified in § 51-1-11(c) #
Under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(c), the ten-year repose does not apply to:
- Claims arising out of conduct that manifests a willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property
- Claims involving manufacturing products that cause disease or birth defect
- The manufacturer’s continuing duty to warn of dangers becoming known after the product is sold
These exceptions function as separate paths to recovery in cases that fall outside the standard ten-year window.
Long-latency disease exception preserves claims where injury manifests slowly #
Some injuries do not appear until years or decades after exposure to the causing product. Asbestos-related mesothelioma can develop 20-40 years after exposure. Certain industrial chemicals can cause cancers that emerge decades later. Reproductive toxins can cause birth defects in children of exposed parents.
The long-latency exception under § 51-1-11(c) preserves negligence claims for these injuries even when the product was manufactured and sold more than ten years before the disease manifests. The exception is structural: applying a ten-year repose to a 30-year latency disease would extinguish the cause of action before the plaintiff could possibly know they had been injured.
The exception is narrower than it might appear. It applies specifically to “disease or birth defect,” not to traumatic injuries that occurred more than ten years after sale. A plaintiff injured by a defective lawnmower fifteen years after the mower was sold cannot use the long-latency exception. A plaintiff who develops mesothelioma forty years after exposure to defective asbestos insulation can.
Willful, reckless, or wanton conduct exception preserves elevated-culpability claims #
The second exception preserves claims based on conduct that exceeds ordinary negligence. The manufacturer must have acted with:
- Willful misconduct (deliberate disregard of known risks)
- Recklessness (conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risks)
- Wantonness (extreme indifference to consequences)
The Supreme Court of Georgia confirmed in Ford Motor Company v. Cosper, S23Q0625 (Ga. 2023), that “reckless” is a standalone exception under § 51-1-11(c), separate from “willful” and “wanton.” A plaintiff can defeat the repose by showing reckless conduct alone, without proving the higher willful or wanton standards. Cosper answered a question that had been resolved at the Court of Appeals level in Chrysler Group LLC v. Walden, 339 Ga. App. 733 (2016), but was contested by manufacturer defendants. The Supreme Court of Georgia adopted the Walden approach: “reckless” disregard for life or property means conduct creating an unreasonable risk of harm with a high probability of substantial harm, even if the actor hoped or expected the conduct would prove harmless.
The threshold parallels (though it is not identical to) the punitive damages standard under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1. Internal documents, regulatory submissions, recall histories, and similar evidence can establish the elevated-culpability standard required to defeat the repose under the Cosper/Walden framework.
Continuing duty to warn exception preserves post-sale obligations #
The third exception preserves the manufacturer’s duty to warn even after the original sale. Under § 51-1-11(c), the repose does not relieve a manufacturer from the duty to warn of a danger arising from the use of a product once that danger becomes known to the manufacturer.
The continuing duty to warn operates independently of the original sale date. A manufacturer who learns in 2024 that a product first sold in 1985 carries a previously unrecognized risk has a duty to warn current users and known purchasers, and a failure to act on that knowledge can support liability for injuries occurring after the manufacturer’s knowledge.
The duty extends to:
- Issuing post-sale warnings when feasible
- Communicating risks to known purchasers and distribution chain
- Issuing recalls in appropriate cases
- Updating warnings on units still being sold
The exception ensures that manufacturers cannot escape responsibility for newly discovered risks simply because the original product is more than ten years old.
The exceptions apply to negligence, not strict liability #
A critical structural point. The exceptions in § 51-1-11(c) preserve negligence claims, not strict liability claims under § 51-1-11(b)(1); the strict liability repose in § 51-1-11(b)(2) operates on a flat ten-year limit without these exceptions.
Plaintiffs whose strict liability claims are barred by the repose can still pursue negligence claims under § 51-1-11(c) when an exception applies. The negligence theory requires different proof, since the manufacturer’s level of care becomes relevant, but the underlying injury and damages framework is the same.
Discovery in exception cases focuses on manufacturer knowledge #
Cases proceeding under the § 51-1-11(c) exceptions typically involve intensive discovery into the manufacturer’s knowledge over time:
- When did the manufacturer first learn of the relevant risk?
- What internal documents discuss the risk?
- What warnings were issued and when?
- What testing was performed and what did it show?
- What did regulatory submissions reveal?
- How did the manufacturer respond to user complaints or injury reports?
This evidence supports both the substantive negligence claim and the application of the exception itself. Establishing the exception often requires proving that the manufacturer knew of risks but did not act adequately.
The exceptions reshape the strategic landscape in older-product cases #
In cases involving products more than ten years old, the choice between theories becomes structural rather than merely tactical:
- Strict liability: Barred by the repose, regardless of evidence
- Ordinary negligence: Generally barred by the same ten-year limit under § 51-1-11(c)
- Negligence with exception: Available if the case falls within long-latency disease, willful/reckless/wanton conduct, or continuing duty to warn
Plaintiffs in older-product cases either fit within an exception or do not have a viable cause of action. The exceptions, while preserving important categories of claims, narrow the path substantially compared to younger-product cases.
The exception preserves the cause of action, but the SoL still runs from injury #
Even when an exception applies, the two-year statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 continues to run from the date of injury. Plaintiffs cannot rely on the exception alone; the lawsuit must still be filed within two years of injury (with standard tolling rules). The exceptions extend the substantive cause of action’s life beyond ten years from first sale, but they do not extend the SoL applicable once the injury occurs.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Personal injury cases turn on specific facts and applicable law that vary by case. If you have been injured in Georgia and want to understand your legal options, consult a licensed Georgia personal injury attorney.