"The clearly stated purpose of [OCGA § 51-12-5.1] is to punish and deter the defendant in a tort action." Mack Trucks v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 542 ( 436 S.E.2d 635) (1993). Subsections (e) (1) and (2) of the statute carry out this purpose with respect to the imposition of punitive damages in product liability actions and provide in general that, although there is no ceiling on the award of punitive damages, there may be only one such award against a defendant for any act or omission regardless of the number of causes of action that may arise from such act or omission and that 75 percent of any such award will be paid into the state treasury.
Before admitting proffered evidence of other transactions in products liability cases, the trial court must satisfy itself that the rule of substantial similarity has been met. Thus, in Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, the Court of Appeals has recently held that it was reversible error to admit tire adjustment data in a products liability case without a "showing of similarity of the tires, defects or the causes thereof."Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 544 ( 436 S.E.2d 635) (1993); Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Daniel, 244 Ga. 284, 287 ( 260 S.E.2d 20) (1973).Mack Trucks, 263 Ga. at 544.
Hamby agrees there is no federal cause of action, but she argues such a claim is recognized under Georgia law. In making her argument, Hamby relies heavily upon Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 545, 436 S.E.2d 635, 640 (1993). In Conkle, the plaintiff was injured after the tractor trailer truck he was driving overturned when its right frame rail broke.
Four cases have spoken on the constitutionality of § 51-12-5.1(e)(2). See McBride v. Gen. Motors Corp., 737 F. Supp. 1563 (M.D. Ga. 1990); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 436 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. 1993); State v. Moseley, 436 S.E.2d 632 (Ga. 1993); Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 476 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. 1996). Out of the four, only the earliest, McBride, struck down the statute as unconstitutional.
In the absence of a legally cognizable duty, there can be no fault or negligence. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Clemente, 294 Ga. App. 38, 58 (13) ( 668 SE2d 737) (2008). As an initial matter, we reject the plaintiffs' contention that the question of whether a manufacturer has a duty to recall a product was resolved by Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 540-541 (1) ( 436 SE2d 635) (1993), and Smith v. Ontario Sewing Machine Co., 249 Ga. App. 364, 368 (b) ( 548 SE2d 89) (2001). Although the plaintiffs in Mack Trucks, Inc. had brought a claim "for negligent failure to recall or warn," 263 Ga. at 539, there was no challenge or ruling on appeal as to the validity of that claim.
In fact, the Defendant's alleged conduct is enough to sustain punitive damages. Under Georgia law, any automobile manufacturer placing profit over safety risks punitive damages liability. See, e.g., Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539 (1993); General Motors Corp. v.Moseley, 213 Ga. App. 875, 885 (1994) (reversed on other grounds). In Mack Trucks, the defendant chose not to reinforce frames on trucks — at a cost of $103 — despite pleas from the defendant's engineering department to do so.
Nestlehutt , 286 Ga. at 737, 691 S.E.2d 218. See also, e.g., Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle , 263 Ga. 539, 543, 436 S.E.2d 635 (1993) ("We have previously held that the legislature may lawfully circumscribe punitive damages in this circumstance."). We have even made clear that "the General Assembly properly can enact legislation that departs from the common law.
"In product liability actions, evidence of other incidents involving the product is admissible, and relevant to the issues of notice of a defect and punitive damages, provided there is a showing of substantial similarity. Mack Trucks v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539 ( 436 S.E.2d 635) (1993). `Without a showing of substantial similarity, the evidence is irrelevant as a matter of law [and there is nothing upon which the court's discretion can operate].
Moreover, the alleged fact that Mentor has exhibited punitive conduct toward multiple plaintiffs will not unfairly inflate the punitive award given that other similar conduct evidence would be admissible on the issue of punitive damages even if those other victims are not named parties. Curiously, Mentor cites to Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 542, 436 S.E.2d 635, 638 (1993) in support of its argument, yet the facts of that case appear directly contrary to Mentor's position. A careful reading of Mack Trucks indicates that punitive damages were awarded against a truck manufacturer when a husband and wife brought a product liability action against the manufacturer, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the $2 million punitive damages award. Id. at 539, 545; 436 S.E.2d at 636, 640.
McClure , 259 Ga. at 682 & n.7, 385 S.E.2d 271 (some footnotes, paragraph breaks, and punctuation omitted). Four years later, in Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle , 263 Ga. 539, 436 S.E.2d 635 (1993), we elaborated on the statute's "three-tiered" structure for punitive damages awards: It can be seen that subsections (e), (f) and (g) constitute a consistent statutory scheme for the regulation of punitive damages.