DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY

STATE OF GEORGIA

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Georgia ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Georgia

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[General Counsel / Risk Management / Claims Representative]
[Manufacturer / Distributor / Retailer Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date]
Product: [Product Name, Model Number, Serial Number]
Manufacturer: [Manufacturer Name]
Purchase Date/Location: [Date / Retailer Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with serious personal injuries caused by a defective [Product Name] designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by your company. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement under Georgia law.

I. GEORGIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

Georgia products liability law is governed by O.C.G.A. Title 51 and common law principles derived from Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, as adopted in Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 218 S.E.2d 580 (1975).

B. Statute of Limitations

Under O.C.G.A. Section 9-3-33, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability actions, is two (2) years from the date of injury. This incident occurred on [Date], and the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

C. Statute of Repose

Georgia imposes a ten (10) year statute of repose for products liability claims. O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-11(b)(2). No action may be brought more than ten years after the date of the first sale of the product. The subject product was first sold on [Date], and this action is timely.

D. Theories of Liability Recognized

Georgia recognizes the following theories of products liability:

1. Strict Liability: Under O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-11 and Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732, 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994), manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products that are unreasonably dangerous.

2. Negligence: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 (1916), adopted in Georgia, permits recovery for negligent design, manufacture, and failure to warn.

3. Breach of Warranty: Express and implied warranties under O.C.G.A. Sections 11-2-313, 11-2-314, and 11-2-315 (Georgia UCC) provide additional grounds for recovery.

E. Design Defect Standard

Georgia applies a risk-utility balancing test for design defect claims. Under Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732, 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994), the plaintiff must demonstrate that the risks inherent in the design outweigh the utility of the product. Relevant factors include:

• The usefulness and desirability of the product
• The availability of other safer products to meet the same need
• The likelihood and probable seriousness of injury
• The obviousness of the danger
• Public expectations as to the danger
• The avoidability of injury by care in use of the product
• The ability to eliminate danger without seriously impairing usefulness or making the product unduly expensive

F. Comparative Fault

Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence rule (50% bar). O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33. A plaintiff may recover if their fault is less than 50% of the total fault, but recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is barred entirely.

Our client bears no responsibility for this incident.

G. Joint and Several Liability

Georgia has abolished joint and several liability for most cases. O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33(b). Each defendant is liable only for their proportionate share of fault, with limited exceptions for intentional torts and certain hazardous waste cases.

H. Punitive Damages

Under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1, punitive damages may be awarded upon clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.

Cap: Punitive damages are generally capped at $250,000 unless:
- The defendant acted with specific intent to cause harm;
- The defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or
- Product liability cases involving specific intent to cause harm.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of any punitive damages award (less attorney's fees and litigation costs) is paid to the State of Georgia. O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1(e)(2).

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - SPOLIATION WARNING

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this product and claim, including but not limited to:

Product-Related:
- The subject product and all component parts
- All exemplar products of the same make and model
- Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- Manufacturing records for the subject product and similar products
- Quality control records and inspection reports
- Testing data and results (pre-market and post-market)
- Safety assessments and risk analyses
- FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- All versions of owner's manuals and instructions
- All versions of warnings and labels
- Marketing and advertising materials

Complaints and Claims:
- Consumer complaints involving this product or similar products
- Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- Regulatory communications (FDA, CPSC, NHTSA)
- Recall notices and service bulletins

Georgia courts recognize spoliation sanctions. See Chapman v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 220 Ga. App. 539, 469 S.E.2d 783 (1996). Destruction or alteration of evidence may result in adverse inference instructions and other sanctions.

III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

A. Product Identification

B. Chain of Distribution

C. Product Background

[Describe the product, its intended use, and relevant safety considerations]

IV. THE DEFECT

A. Nature of Defect

[SELECT APPLICABLE THEORY:]

DESIGN DEFECT:

The [Product Name] contains a design defect rendering it unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable uses. Under Georgia's risk-utility test established in Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 (1994), the risks of the design outweigh its utility.

[Detailed description of design defect]

A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented or reduced the risk of injury:

[Description of alternative design]

MANUFACTURING DEFECT:

The specific [Product Name] involved in this incident departed from its intended design due to a manufacturing defect:

[Description of how this product differs from intended design]

FAILURE TO WARN:

The [Product Name] was defective due to inadequate warnings and instructions. Your company knew or should have known of risks but failed to adequately warn:

[Description of warning deficiencies]

V. THE INCIDENT

On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing with the product]:

[Detailed narrative of the incident]

Our client was using the product:
- For its intended purpose
- In a reasonably foreseeable manner
- In accordance with provided instructions

The defect was the direct and proximate cause of our client's injuries.

VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Strict Products Liability

Under O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-11 and Georgia common law, your company is strictly liable because:

1. The product was defective when it left your control;
2. The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous;
3. The defect was the proximate cause of our client's injuries; and
4. Our client suffered damages.

B. Negligence

Your company is also liable under negligence theories:

Negligent Design: The product was designed without reasonable care for consumer safety.

Negligent Manufacture: [If applicable] The product was manufactured without adequate quality control.

Negligent Failure to Warn: Your company knew or should have known of dangers but failed to provide adequate warnings.

C. Breach of Warranty

Express Warranty (O.C.G.A. Section 11-2-313): Your company warranted that [describe warranty], which was breached.

Implied Warranty of Merchantability (O.C.G.A. Section 11-2-314): The product was not fit for its ordinary purpose.

VII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT

Evidence of prior knowledge strengthens punitive damages claims under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1:

• [Number] prior complaints regarding this defect
• [Number] prior injuries from this defect
• [Prior lawsuits, recalls, or regulatory actions]
• Internal documents acknowledging the defect

VIII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES

A. Injuries Sustained

As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:

Physical Injuries:
- [Injury 1]
- [Injury 2]
- [Injury 3]

Surgeries and Procedures:
- [Surgery 1]
- [Surgery 2]

Permanent Conditions:
- [Permanent effects, if any]

B. Medical Treatment

[Describe treatment chronology]

C. Damages Summary

D. Punitive Damages

Your company's conduct in [describe egregious conduct] constitutes willful misconduct, wantonness, or conscious indifference to consequences warranting punitive damages under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1.

IX. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon clear liability and the severe injuries suffered by our client, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for [45/60] days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].

X. RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS

Please direct your response to the undersigned. If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court of [County] County, Georgia, and pursue this matter through trial.

XI. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Medical records and bills
• Product photographs
• Incident photographs
• Employment and wage records
• Expert reports (if available)
• [Other relevant documentation]

XII. CONCLUSION

This defective product caused serious injuries to our client that were entirely preventable. Georgia law provides clear remedies for such cases, and recent products liability verdicts in Georgia have been substantial. We urge you to evaluate this claim seriously and respond with a fair settlement offer.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Georgia Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

GEORGIA PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES

• Risk-Utility Test: Georgia uses risk-utility balancing, not consumer expectations, for design defects. Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 (1994).

• Modified Comparative Negligence: 50% bar rule - plaintiff cannot recover if 50% or more at fault. O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33.

• No Joint and Several Liability: Each defendant pays only their proportionate share of fault.

• Statute of Repose: 10 years from first sale is an absolute bar. O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-11(b)(2).

• Punitive Damages Split: 75% of punitive damages (less fees/costs) goes to the state. O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1(e)(2).

• Apportionment to Non-Parties: Georgia allows fault to be apportioned to non-parties under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33(d)(1).

• Venue: County where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. O.C.G.A. Section 9-10-31.

This template must be customized for each case and verified against current Georgia law. Products liability law is complex and requires careful analysis of all applicable theories and defenses.