Ford Motor Company v. Cosper

A Georgia family sued Ford Motor Company after a man died from injuries suffered in a 2015 rollover crash of a Ford Explorer, arguing the vehicle's roof design was dangerously flawed. Ford argued the lawsuit was filed too late under Georgia's ten-year statute of repose for product defect claims, but the law makes an exception for negligence claims involving willful, reckless, or wanton conduct. The federal trial court handling the case asked the Supreme Court of Georgia two questions: whether recklessness alone (without willfulness or wantonness) can trigger that exception, and if so, what recklessness means. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that recklessness is indeed its own separate exception, not just part of a single combined legal standard. It also defined reckless disregard for life or property using language drawn from a classic legal treatise, focusing on conduct that creates an unreasonable and highly probable risk of substantial harm, even without an intent to cause harm.

Reckless disregard for life or property is a standalone exception to Georgia's ten-year product-liability statute of repose, separate from willful or wanton conduct. Reckless conduct occurs when an actor knowingly or with reason to know disregards facts showing an unreasonable risk and a high probability of substantial harm to life or property, though without intending the harm.

The ruling lets Georgia consumers injured by defective products long after their purchase pursue claims against manufacturers if they can show reckless design or manufacturing choices, without needing to prove intent to harm. Manufacturers face broader potential liability exposure in older-product injury cases.

Certified questions answered

1. The court read the statute's plain language and noted that the word 'or' in the phrase 'willful, reckless, or wanton disregard for life or property' is ordinarily disjunctive, meaning it lists three separate alternatives rather than one combined legal term.
2. The court rejected Ford's argument that the phrase is a single legal term of art meaning one mindset, finding that prior Georgia case law (Chrysler Corp. v. Batten) already gave 'willful' and 'wanton' distinct definitions, undercutting the idea that all three words mean the same thing.
3. Using the associated-words canon, a rule that a word's meaning is informed by the other words grouped with it in a statute, the court concluded that 'reckless' conduct is related to but less culpable than 'willful' or 'wanton' conduct, while still being more culpable than ordinary negligence and likely to cause harm.
4. Because Georgia case law before 1987 never clearly defined 'reckless' on its own for civil cases, the court looked to the Restatement (First) of Torts, a widely used summary of common-law principles that Georgia courts have historically relied on when interpreting similar legal terms.
5. The court adapted the Restatement's definition of 'Reckless Disregard of Safety' to fit the statute's specific wording about harm to 'life or property,' producing a definition requiring a known, unreasonable, and highly probable risk of substantial harm.
6. Applying this framework, the court disapproved part of a Georgia Court of Appeals decision (Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Walden) for offering an incomplete definition of recklessness that left out the reasonable-person standard and the requirement of an unreasonable, substantial risk of harm.

• statute of repose
• reckless disregard
• Ford Explorer rollover
• product liability lawsuit
• certified question