...SAM’S EAST, INC. BETHEL, Justice. This case involving personal injury claims arising from an automobile accident is before this Court on three certified questions from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The questions seek this Court’s interpretation of OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b), which provides that “[n]o person shall operate or load for operation, on any public road, any vehicle with any load” unless the load and any covering thereon is “securely fastened” and whether this Code section applies to a tort claim. Our responses to the questions certified, as explained more fully below, can be summarized as follows: (1) OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) imposes a duty on a person assisting the operator of a vehicle with loading merchandise onto the vehicle to securely fasten the load; (2) a person assisting in loading a vehicle may be liable in tort for injuries to a third party resulting from a breach of his or her duty to secure that load (and any covering thereon); and (3) when serving as the basis for a civil tort suit, a violation of OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1) is subject to ordinary tort principles and defenses.1 1....

...punitive damages. After Sam’s East filed a motion for summary judgment and McEntyre filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, the district court stayed the proceedings and certified the following questions to this Court: (1) Does OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1) require a person — who is assisting the operator of a vehicle to load merchandise onto said vehicle — to “securely fasten” the load to the vehicle? (2) Under OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1), would a person — who assists in loading or securing a load to a vehicle but is not operating the vehicle — be liable to a third party who is injured while the vehicle is in operation on a public road as a result of the load becoming loose, detached, or in any manner . . . a hazard to other users of the public 3  road? (3) Under OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1), does the occurrence of a load becoming loose, detached, or in any manner . . . a hazard to other users of the public road necessarily mean that the load was not securely fastened? That is to say, is OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1) a strict liability statute? 2. The district court’s certified questions call upon us to interpret the meaning of OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1), which provides: (b) No person shall operate or load for operation, on any public road, any vehicle with any load unless such load and any covering thereon is securely fastened so as to prevent such cov...

...forms the legal background of the statutory provision in question. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mobley v. State, 307 Ga. 59, 69 (4) (a) (834 SE2d 785) (2019). (a) The first question the district court asked is whether OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1) requires a person to “securely fasten” the load when he or she is merely assisting the operator of a vehicle in loading it....

...See OCGA § 16-2-20 (establishing party to a crime criminal liability); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Loudermilk, 305 Ga. 558, 572- 574 (2) (826 SE2d 116) (2019) (discussing “concerted action” as the basis for tort liability). Contrary to Sam’s East’s argument, OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1) does not contain any language restricting the duty it sets out only to those who have “control” over the operation of the vehicle....

...c road are all engaged in loading the vehicle, and therefore would all have a duty to secure 6 the load and any covering thereon under the statute. That duty is owed to “other users of the public road.” OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1) (providing that such duty is “to prevent such covering or load from . ....

...that may flow from the plain text of the statute enacted by the General Assembly may be mitigated by application of traditional tort principles of proximate cause. (b) The remaining questions posed by the district court asked whether OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) (1) is a “strict liability” statute such that the occurrence of a load becoming loose, detached, or in any manner a hazard to other users of the public road necessarily means that the load was not securely fastened, and wheth...

...App. 362, 363 (6) (173 SE2d 741) (1970) (one who sets off an explosive blast “is absolutely liable to the injured party, despite the exercise of due care”). 9 context).3 Here, the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) do not explicitly provide for strict liability in the context of a civil tort action, but rather provide the basis of the underlying duty....

...and any covering thereon. When a person is allegedly injured by such a load or covering falling on a public road, ordinary principles of negligence apply, meaning that the plaintiff must establish a 3 We recognize that a violation of OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) is also a misdemeanor criminal offense. See OCGA § 40-6-249 (providing that violations of OCGA § 40-6-248.1 are misdemeanors and shall be punished as set forth in OCGA § 16-7-43); see also OCGA §§ 16-7-43 (b) (1), (2) (providing that violations of OCGA § 16-7-43 (a) are misdemeanors and that violators may be directed by the court to pick...

...And these sorts of “Rules of the Road” offenses are sometimes referred to as “strict liability” crimes. See State v. Ogilvie, 292 Ga. 6, 8 (2) (a) (734 SE2d 50) (2012); see also Semones, 200 Ga. App. at 3-4 (trial court did not err in determining that violation of the predecessor to OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b), when defendant failed to secure chairs in his vehicle before operating it on a public roadway, was a strict liability criminal offense)....

...A trial court cannot presume that in every instance where a load has become loose, detached, or in any manner a hazard to other users of the public road that the load was not securely fastened and that any 4 Because the question is not posed to us, we need not answer whether a violation of duty imposed by OCGA § 40-6-248.1 (b) may provide the basis for asserting a claim of negligence per se....