O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 51-15-1 (2019)

Legislative findings; limitations on liabilities

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The General Assembly finds that the number of asbestos related claims has increased significantly in recent years and threatens the continued viability of a number of uniquely situated companies that have not ever manufactured, sold, or distributed asbestos or asbestos products and are argued to be liable only as successor corporations. This liability has created an overpowering public necessity to provide an immediate, clarifying, and remedial legislative solution. The General Assembly intends that the cumulative recovery by all asbestos claimants from innocent successors be limited, and intends to simply clarify and fix the form of asbestos claimants’ remedies without impairing their substantive rights and finds that there are no alternative means to meet this public necessity. The General Assembly finds that Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, and South Carolina have enacted legislation similar to this chapter that, among other things, provides limitations of liabilities for asbestos claims for innocent successors. The General Assembly finds the public interest as a whole is best served by providing relief to these innocent successors so that they may remain viable and continue to contribute to this state. The General Assembly further finds that Georgia’s successor liability statutes were never intended or contemplated to impose liability on successors in the situation covered by this chapter.

History

(Code 1981, § 51-15-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 4, § 2/SB 182.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For survey article on product liability law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 331 (2007).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2010–2010 · leading case: Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010).
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010). · cites it 2× “[136] O.C.G.A. § 51-15-1 to -8 (2010) (see § 51-15-3, Chapter Note, Editor's Notes, on effective date and non-codified provisions); Ga.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.