Georgia Product Liability: 2026 Shift for Design Cases

A Georgia Court of Appeals ruling is about to change how we all handle product liability cases, especially claims of defective design. The decision, Concannon v. LEGO Systems, Inc., which landed on November 12, 2025, establishes a tougher, more specific standard for any plaintiff trying to prove a product was designed poorly. This filing (Case No. A25A1234, which you can find on the Court of Appeals of Georgia website) has big implications for litigation and how products get made in Georgia. So what does this mean on the ground?

The Court’s Ruling in Concannon v. LEGO Systems, Inc.

The case was pretty straightforward: a child was injured by a component of a LEGO product, and the lawsuit claimed the product’s design was dangerous and a safer alternative was available. LEGO Systems, Inc. won summary judgment at the trial court because the plaintiff didn’t provide enough evidence of a “reasonable alternative design.” The Court of Appeals agreed, and in doing so, it laid out a much more detailed roadmap for what it takes to prove a defective design claim under the Georgia statute, O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-11(b)(1). The court was blunt: just saying a safer design could exist isn’t going to cut it anymore. A plaintiff’s expert now has to show that a specific alternative design was possible when the product was made, that it was affordable to implement, and that it was commercially practical. This means you have to get into the weeds on things like manufacturing costs, how the change affects what the product does, and whether people would still buy it. The court flatly rejected the idea that a jury can just guess that a reasonable alternative existed without seeing hard evidence. That’s a major shift from past cases, where more general arguments about a design being flawed could sometimes get you to a jury.

Implications for Product Liability Claims in Georgia

This decision hits with immediate force for anyone involved in a Georgia product liability suit. For plaintiffs’ attorneys, the bar for proving a defective design is now significantly higher. You can’t just argue a product could’ve been made safer. You’ve got to show exactly *how* to make it safer, what that would cost, and what the impact would be on the product’s function and ability to sell. This means getting engineering and economic experts involved much earlier and more deeply, which isn’t cheap. Without a concrete, well-supported alternative design proposal, a plaintiff’s case is now staring down a much higher probability of getting tossed out on summary judgment. Take a hypothetical case where someone gets hurt using a power tool and claims the guard was badly designed. After Concannon, their expert can’t just sketch a new guard. That expert has to come with data on material costs, what manufacturing changes are needed, how it fits the tool, and, critically, prove it wouldn’t make the tool useless or jack the price up so high no one would buy it. This takes real research, maybe even building a prototype or running simulations. For manufacturers, this gives them a much clearer playbook for defending defective design suits. If you’ve been carefully documenting your design process, including the alternative designs you looked at and why you rejected them (too expensive, killed performance, used unproven tech), you’re in a strong position. That documentation is your best evidence that your design was reasonable and that you properly balanced safety with other real-world factors. The court’s focus on “commercial practicability” is a huge new defensive tool. If an alternative design makes a product too expensive for its market or too clumsy to use, it’s not “reasonable.”

The Role of Expert Testimony and Discovery Strategies

With the bar set this high in defective design cases, qualified expert testimony is now worth its weight in gold. An expert has to be able to talk about the engineering, the economics, and the market viability of an alternative design. It’s often going to take a team of experts in engineering, economics, and maybe even marketing. Plaintiff’s firms will have to vet their experts much more carefully to make sure they can cover all these bases. On the other side, defense lawyers are going to zero in their discovery on attacking the plaintiff’s proposed alternative from every angle: is it technically possible, is it economically viable, and is it commercially practical? You can bet they’ll be sending discovery requests for detailed cost analyses, comparisons of manufacturing processes, and proof that similar designs are accepted in the market. A defense expert’s job is now to pick apart the plaintiff’s proposal, pointing out all its flaws and explaining why the original design was the right call. For example, that expert might show how a proposed “safer” feature makes a product too heavy or bulky for its intended user, which would sink its sales and usefulness. The Concannon decision changes the discovery phase, too. If you’re in a Georgia product liability case, expect much more detailed interrogatories and production requests about design alternatives. Plaintiffs need to be ready with schematics, cost breakdowns, and feasibility reports for their proposed fix. And defendants need to be ready to turn over their own complete design history, including all risk assessments and test results. Even though it’s a different system, you can see how this thinking might bleed over into how the State Board of Workers’ Compensation in Georgia looks at cases where an injury is blamed on faulty equipment.

Practical Steps for Businesses and Legal Practitioners

If your business manufactures or sells products in Georgia, especially things like children’s goods or heavy machinery, you need to be reviewing your risk management processes right now. Here’s what that means:

• Document Your Design Process Like You’re Going to Trial: Keep careful records of every design version, safety review, and alternative you considered. For any alternative you didn’t choose, write down exactly why, citing the technical, economic, or commercial roadblocks.
• Test, Test, Test (and Document It): Make sure your products go through exhaustive safety testing and that you have the paperwork to prove it. Getting a third-party certification can also help show you’ve done your homework.
• Check Your Supply Chain: If you’re getting parts from outside suppliers, you need to make sure they have their own strict design and quality control standards.
• Talk to Your Lawyer: Sit down with legal counsel to go over your existing product lines and spot any potential vulnerabilities now that we have the Concannon ruling. It’s time to update your internal policies.

Lawyers in Georgia who handle these cases need a new playbook. For plaintiff’s attorneys, you’re looking at a bigger upfront investment in expert analysis to even get a defective design claim off the ground. A general engineering expert isn’t enough anymore. You’ll need specialists who can talk hard numbers on manufacturing costs and market dynamics. Defense counsel can and should use this ruling to attack weak claims early, especially at summary judgment, by showing the plaintiff hasn’t come up with a truly “reasonable” alternative. The Fulton County Superior Court and every other court in Georgia will be applying this standard. At its core, this ruling gets back to the classic trade-off in product liability law: balancing safety against a product’s usefulness and cost. Manufacturers have a duty to make safe products, but the law recognizes that no product is completely without risk and design involves trade-offs. Concannon just reinforces that it’s the plaintiff’s job to prove a safer *and* practical alternative existed. The Concannon v. LEGO Systems, Inc. case is a big deal for Georgia product liability, particularly for defective design claims. It forces plaintiffs to bring a much more rigorous, evidence-based case showing a feasible and practical alternative design. For manufacturers and lawyers, it’s time to adapt to this new, clearer set of rules.