Georgia imposes a hard ten-year limit on most product liability claims. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(2), no strict liability product action can be commenced more than ten years after the first sale of the product for use or consumption. The repose operates as an absolute bar, not a statute of limitations subject to standard tolling. After the ten-year period, strict liability claims end regardless of when the injury occurred. Negligence claims also end, except in the narrow categories preserved under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(c).
| Statute of repose (§ 51-1-11(b)(2)) | Statute of limitations (§ 9-3-33) | |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger event | First sale of product to intended consumer | Date of injury |
| Length | 10 years | 2 years |
| Nature | Absolute bar, ends the cause of action | Procedural deadline to file suit |
| Discovery rule tolling | Not available | Available in appropriate cases |
| Minor tolling (§ 9-3-90) | Generally not available | Available |
| Exceptions | § 51-1-11(c) (3 categories, negligence only) | Standard tolling rules |
Repose runs from the first sale, not the manufacture #
The Supreme Court of Georgia resolved a long-running question about the trigger date in Campbell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 288 Ga. 535 (2011). In response to a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit, the Court held that the statute of repose begins to run when the finished product is sold as new to the intended consumer who is to receive the product.
This holding settled several alternative readings:
- Repose does not run from when a component is assembled or tested
- Repose does not run from when the finished product is manufactured
- Repose does not run from intermediate sales in the distribution chain
- Repose runs from the first sale to the intended end user
A truck sold new in 2014 remains within the repose period until 2024, regardless of when its component parts were manufactured or when it changed hands among subsequent owners.
The repose is absolute, not a statute of limitations #
A statute of limitations defines how long after an injury a plaintiff has to file suit. A statute of repose defines how long after a triggering event (here, first sale) the cause of action can exist at all. The repose is structural, not procedural.
Practically, this means:
- Discovery rule tolling does not extend the repose
- Continuing tort theories generally do not extend the repose
- Equitable tolling does not extend the repose
- Minor tolling under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 generally does not extend the repose
When ten years pass from the first sale, the underlying cause of action ends. Even an injury occurring on the eleventh year does not produce a viable strict liability claim.
The repose applies to strict liability and (with exceptions) to negligence #
The ten-year limitation applies broadly. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(2), it bars strict liability claims. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(c), it extends to negligence claims against manufacturers, except in three specifically enumerated categories.
Three categories of negligence claims survive the repose #
Three exceptions. Under § 51-1-11(c), the ten-year repose does not apply to:
- Claims for damages arising out of conduct that manifests a willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property
- Claims arising out of the manufacturer’s negligence in manufacturing products that cause disease or birth defect
- The manufacturer’s continuing duty to warn of dangers that become known after sale
The first category preserves claims based on aggravated conduct. The second category preserves long-latency disease and birth defect claims (asbestos exposure cases are the classic example, with injury that can manifest decades after exposure). The third category preserves post-sale warning claims based on dangers the manufacturer learned about after the product left its control.
Plaintiffs whose injuries fall within these categories can pursue negligence claims beyond the ten-year window, even though parallel strict liability claims are barred.
Foreign-object exceptions exist in medical malpractice contexts #
A related concept. Although not strictly a product liability rule, the foreign-object exception in medical malpractice cases (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-72) operates as a related repose-extension mechanism: a foreign object negligently left in a patient’s body extends the five-year medical malpractice repose. This narrow extension illustrates how Georgia’s repose framework allows specific exceptions in defined contexts.
Component parts and continuing duties create line-drawing questions #
Several recurring questions arise at the edges of the repose framework:
- When a component manufactured years before the finished product is later incorporated and causes injury, the repose runs from the finished product’s first sale, not the component’s manufacture (Campbell)
- When a manufacturer continues to provide service, parts, or upgrades for a product beyond ten years, the analysis turns on whether the continued conduct constitutes a separate breach or merely service of the original product
- When a product is repaired or rebuilt by the manufacturer, courts must determine whether the rebuilt product constitutes a new product with a new repose trigger
- When a product is sold to a distributor and then resold years later to the end user, Campbell clarifies that the first sale to the intended consumer (end user) starts the clock
The repose interacts with statutes of limitations #
The ten-year repose operates alongside the two-year statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 for personal injury claims. The two work together:
- The injury must occur within ten years of first sale to support a viable strict liability claim
- The lawsuit must be filed within two years of injury under the standard SoL
- Both deadlines must be met; failure of either ends the claim
In practice, plaintiffs injured by older products face the repose first. If the product is more than ten years old, plaintiffs cannot reach the SoL question for strict liability purposes (though negligence claims may survive under § 51-1-11(c) exceptions).
Discovery of repose-related facts is central in older-product cases #
When product age is contested, discovery typically focuses on:
- Date of first sale (production records, sales records, invoices)
- Identity of the original purchaser
- Whether the injuring product is the original product or has been substantially modified
- Whether the manufacturer continued any sales, service, or warning activities relating to the specific product
Plaintiffs and defendants both have reason to develop the factual record carefully on these questions, since they can determine whether the repose has run.
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.