# Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Georgia · December 5, 1994 · 264 Ga. 732

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570407

## Case

- **Full name:** BANKS Et Al. v. ICI AMERICAS, INC.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** December 5, 1994
- **Citations:** 264 Ga. 732; 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3978; 450 S.E.2d 671; 1994 Ga. LEXIS 907
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Carley
- **Judges:** Hunstein, Hunt, Fletcher, Carley
- **Cited by:** 155 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570407

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the distinction between negligence and strict liability in design defect cases must “matter to an extent”
- explaining that inadequate warnings are a type of product defect

## Opinion text

Carley, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in Divisions 1 and 3 of the majority opinion, but cannot concur in Division 2. I agree with adoption of the risk-utility analysis for design defect claims and with the disapproval of the analysis in Mann v. Coast Catamaran Corp., 254 Ga. 201 ( 326 SE2d 436 ) (1985). However, the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law as it existed at the time of its decision. Now that the rule has been changed on certiorari, I would remand this case to the Court of Appeals to allow it to apply the new rule to the record and to enable the parties properly to address the record in light of the new rule. At such time, the Court of Appeals would also need to consider ICI’s remaining enumerations of error, which it did not address in its original opinion. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570407. Public record. Not legal advice.