When a commercial truck or one of its components is the subject of a manufacturer recall, that recall can be relevant to litigation arising from a crash. A recall may help show that a known defect existed, that the manufacturer was aware of a hazard, or that a particular component was prone to failure. Introducing recall evidence in Georgia, however, requires attention to several rules of evidence, and the way a recall is treated depends heavily on its timing relative to the accident.
What a recall is
A safety recall is issued when a manufacturer or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines that a vehicle or piece of equipment contains a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet a federal safety standard. A recall notice typically identifies the affected vehicles or parts, describes the defect, and explains the remedy. Recall records are maintained in NHTSA’s public databases.
Recall evidence and the rule on subsequent remedial measures
The most important rule to consider is O.C.G.A. § 24-4-407, which governs subsequent remedial measures. That rule provides that, in civil proceedings, when measures are taken after an injury or harm that would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of those measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct. The rule exists so that parties are not discouraged from making safety improvements by the prospect that doing so will be used against them as an admission of fault.
The timing of the recall is therefore critical, and it is a frequent point of confusion.
A recall issued after the accident, in response to or following the harm, can fall within the concept of a subsequent remedial measure. Evidence of such a post-accident recall is not admissible to prove that the manufacturer was negligent or otherwise culpable.
A recall issued before the accident is a different matter. A pre-existing recall is not a subsequent remedial measure at all, because it was not a step taken after the injury in question. Evidence of a recall that predates the crash is not barred by O.C.G.A. § 24-4-407 and may be admissible, subject to the other rules of evidence, to show matters such as the existence of a defect and the manufacturer’s knowledge of it.
Exceptions within the subsequent remedial measures rule
Even when a recall qualifies as a subsequent remedial measure, O.C.G.A. § 24-4-407 contains important limits on the exclusion. The rule expressly provides that it does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for a purpose other than proving negligence or culpable conduct. Recognized other purposes include proving ownership, proving control, and proving the feasibility of precautionary measures, where those matters are disputed. Evidence of remedial measures may also be admitted for impeachment.
The statute also recognizes a product liability dimension. O.C.G.A. § 24-4-407 provides that evidence of remedial measures, while inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, may be admissible to prove product liability under the relevant subsections of O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11, Georgia’s product liability statute. This carve-out is significant in commercial truck litigation that includes a claim against a manufacturer for a defective vehicle or component.
Relevance, hearsay, and authentication
Clearing the subsequent remedial measures hurdle does not by itself make a recall admissible. Other rules still apply.
The recall must be relevant under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-401 and § 24-4-402. Relevance generally requires that the recall concern the same vehicle, the same component, or the same type of defect at issue in the crash. A recall covering an unrelated part or a different model year may have little or no probative value.
Hearsay rules apply to the contents of a recall notice or NHTSA record offered for the truth of what it asserts. Public records and reports of a government agency may be admissible under the public records exception found in O.C.G.A. § 24-8-803, which covers records of public offices setting forth matters observed under a legal duty to report. Records and reports produced by the manufacturer may be evaluated under the business records framework or treated as statements of a party-opponent, depending on the document and the party against whom it is offered.
Authentication is required under O.C.G.A. § 24-9-901. Government records can often be authenticated as official documents, and some public documents may qualify as self-authenticating under O.C.G.A. § 24-9-902.
Finally, even a relevant, authenticated, non-hearsay recall can be excluded under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or of confusing or misleading the jury.
How recall evidence is typically used
In practice, recall material in commercial truck litigation is most often used to support a product liability or defect claim against a manufacturer or component supplier, to establish that a defect was known and documented, or to address a defendant’s contention that a vehicle or part was free of defects. Expert witnesses frequently rely on recall documentation as part of the basis for opinions about defect and causation, and the reliability of such expert testimony is governed by O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702.
Summary
In Georgia commercial truck litigation, recall evidence is introduced subject to several rules, and timing is decisive. A recall issued after the accident may be treated as a subsequent remedial measure and is inadmissible to prove negligence under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-407, though it may still come in for other purposes such as proving feasibility, ownership, or control, for impeachment, or to prove product liability under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11. A recall that predates the accident is not a subsequent remedial measure and is not barred by that rule. In every case, recall evidence must also satisfy the requirements of relevance, the rule against hearsay, authentication, and the balancing test for unfair prejudice.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.