
In L’Oreal USA, Inc. v. Burroughs, 372 Ga. App. 30, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 250, the Court of Appeals of Georgia (Appellate Court) considered whether Georgia’s ten-year statute of repose for products liability precluded strict liability and/or negligence claims where the product, allegedly causing injury, was first purchased more than 10 years ago, but new containers of the same product were purchased within the last 10 years. The Appellate Court found that the “first sale” triggers the products liability statute of repose.
In Burroughs, Kiara Burroughs (Burroughs) alleged that she continuously used chemical hair relaxers from the age of six to twenty-five. In 2018, Burroughs was diagnosed with uterine fibroids, which caused her significant health problems. In October 2022, a scientific health study was released finding an association between chemical hair relaxers and uterine cancers. On October 27, 2022, Burroughs filed her original complaint, including claims for strict liability, negligence, and failure-to warn against L’Oreal USA, Inc. and others (collectively, Defendants). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based, in part, on the statute of repose.
Defendants argued that Burroughs’ claims were barred by the statute of repose. The trial court disagreed stating that “each application of hair relaxer constituted exposure to a new product, with her last use occurring in 2014.” Further, the trial court found that “the last sale of the property as new” triggered the statute of repose, or potentially even the date of Burroughs’ injury.
On appeal, Defendants contended, among other things, that the trial court erred in concluding that the statute of repose did not bar Burroughs’ products liability claim. The Appellate Court agreed with Defendants on the statute of repose issue.
While the plaintiff may assert that the statute of repose is reset every time a consumer purchases a new container of product, the Appellate Court explained that the repose period begins with the “first sale” of the product, as intended by the language of O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(2). With regard to this case, the period of repose began when Burroughs first purchased the product at six years old. As such, the trial court improperly concluded that each application of the hair relaxer constituted exposure to a new product. Similarly, the trial court improperly concluded that the statute potentially ran from the date of Burroughs’ injury, in 2018. A statute of repose, unlike a statute of limitation, is not triggered by the date of the injury.
As subrogation professionals, it is important to be on the lookout for state-specific applications of the products liability statute of repose. Here, the Appellate Court found that the period of repose was triggered by the “first sale” of the product, rather than “a sale.” Failing to understand how Georgia interprets the law could lead you to invest time and energy into a case where the plaintiff has already lost its right to bring an action.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Negligence
- Evidence
- Experts – Daubert
- New York
- Massachusetts
- New Jersey
- Indemnification
- Certificate of Merit
- Experts - Reliability
- California
- Causation
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Condemnation
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- CPSC Warning
- Minnesota
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Uncategorized
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Cargo - Transportation
- Malpractice
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- AIA Contracts
- Product Liability
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Res Judicata
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Arizona
- Construction Defects
- Contracts
- Litigation
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Texas
Tags
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Product Liability
- Negligence
- Statute of Repose
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- New York
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Experts - Reliability
- Experts – Daubert
- New Jersey
- Indemnification
- Certificate of Merit
- Malfunction Theory
- Contracts
- Waiver of Subrogation
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts
- Maryland
- California
- Causation
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Georgia
- Civil Procedure
- Illinois
- Condemnation
- Inverse Condemnation
- Pennsylvania
- Minnesota
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Sutton Doctrine
- Experts – Qualifications
- Arizona
- Florida
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Public Policy
- Rhode Island
- West Virginia
- Negligent Undertaking
- Limitation of Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Indiana
- Expert Qualifications
- Tennessee
- Amazon
- Delaware
- Connecticut
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Design Defect
- Improvement
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Negligence – Duty
- Apportionment
- Privity
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Malpractice
- Warranty - Implied
- Spoliation
- Made Whole
- Settlement
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Independent Duty
- Ohio
- Michigan
- Comparative Fault
- Water Damage
- Contracts - Formation
- Condominiums
- Non-Party at Fault
- Unconscionable
- Missouri
- Parties
- Arbitration
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Res Judicata
- Wisconsin
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Architects-Engineers
- Lithium-ion battery
- Internet Sales
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Exculpatory Clause
- Gross Negligence
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Daubert
- Standing
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- AIA Contract
- Betterment
- Damages
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Washington
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- Idaho
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Construction Contracts
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Texas
Authors
Archives
- July 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022