Prosegue la lite sulla pericolosità dell’applicazione Speed Filter di Snapchat, su cui v. già mio post 19..05.2021.
Interviene la Corte Suprema della Geogia con sentenza 15.03.2022, S21G0555, MAYNARD et al. v. SNAPCHAT, per dire che Snapchat ha un dovere di progettare le applicazioni tenendo conto dei rischi prevedibili producibili a carico degli utenti e che in particolare lo aveva anche in relazione a qhllo poi concretatosi in danno nella vicenda de qua (aver favorito l’eccessiva velocità e la distrazione dell’utente che vuole farsi riprendere mentre guida).
Si tratta in pratica di una precisazione sulla diligenza che avrebbe dovuto essere tenuta dal produttore in fase progettuale. La SC non si sofferma invece sugli altri elementi della fattispecie di responsabilità (aquiliana) : violazione, nesso di causa, danno.
<<Similarly, under our decisional law, when designing a product,
a manufacturer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in “selecting
from among alternative product designs” to “reduce the
[reasonably] foreseeable risks of harm presented by [a] product.>>, p. 8.
<<A breach of a duty constitutes a proximate cause of an injury
only if the injury is the “probable” result of the breach, “according to
ordinary and usual experience,” as opposed to “merely [a] possible”
result of a breach, “according to occasional experienc>>, p. 13
<As shown by the above discussion, considerations regarding
foreseeability are intertwined with questions of duty, breach, and
proximate causation in negligent-design cases. When determining
whether a manufacturer owes a decisional-law design duty with
respect to a particular risk of harm posed by a product, the question
is whether that particular risk was reasonably foreseeable. >>, p. 15
<<only reasonably foreseeable risks of harm posed by a product trigger a manufacturer’s duty to use reasonable care in selecting from alternative designs under our decisional law. See Jones, 274 Ga. at 118. Applying that standard,
the Maynards adequately alleged at the motion-to-dismiss stage
that Snap owed Wentworth a design duty with respect to the
particular risk of harm at issue here – namely, injury to a driver
resulting from another person’s use of the Speed Filter while driving
at excess speed.>>, p. 15-6.
Specificamente i Maynards (gli attori) avevano allegato <<that Snap could reasonably foresee that its product design created this risk of harm based on,
among other things, the fact that Snap knew that other drivers were
using the Speed Filter while speeding at 100 miles per hour or more
as part of “a game,” purposefully designed its products to encourage
such behavior, knew of at least one other instance in which a driver
who was using Snapchat while speeding caused a car crash, and
warned users not to use the product while driving. The Maynards
further alleged that, “[o]nce downloaded, Snapchat’s software
continues to download and install upgrades, updates, or other new
features” from Snap, meaning that the Maynards may be able to
introduce evidence showing that Snap continued developing its
product and released new versions of the software between the
initial launch of the Speed Filter and the date of Wentworth’s
accident, after obtaining real-world information about how the
Speed Filter was in fact being used. Given these allegations, we
cannot say as a matter of law at the motion-to-dismiss stage that the
Maynards could not introduce evidence that, when designing the
Speed Filter, Snap could reasonably foresee that the product’s
design created a risk of car accidents like the one at issue here,
triggering a duty for Snap to use reasonable care in designing the
product in light of that risk. See Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic,
P.A., 307 Ga. 555, 560 (2) (a) (837 SE2d 310) (2019) (noting that a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim cannot be granted
unless “the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state
of provable facts asserted in support of the allegations in the
complaint and could not possibly introduce evidence within the
framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief
sought” (punctuation omitted)); see also Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., Case
No. CV 19-4504-MWF (KSX), 2019 WL 7882079, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
30, 2019) (holding that plaintiffs asserting a car-crash-related
wrongful-death claim against Snap “sufficiently alleged a duty”
owed by Snap because the plaintiffs’ allegation that “[car] accidents
ha[d] occurred as a result of users attempting to capture [a 100
m.p.h.] Snap” as part of a “game” prevented the court from
“determin[ing] that the harm from the Speed Filter was not
foreseeable as a matter of law”). Cf. Sturbridge Partners, Ltd. v.
Walker, 267 Ga. 785, 787 (482 SE2d 339) (1997) (“[E]vidence of the
prior burglaries was sufficient to give rise to a triable issue as to
whether or not Sturbridge had the duty to exercise ordinary care to
safeguard its tenants against the foreseeable risks p osed by the
prior burglaries.”)>>, p. 17-18.
E poi: << a manufacturer’s design duty for purposes of a
negligent-design claim extends to all reasonably foreseeable risks
posed by a produc>>, p. 20.
Naturalmente il vero problema è il caso di un uso totalmente improprio: deve risponderne il produttore? cioè deve tenerne conto quando progetta il prodotto?
<<Contrary to the opinion of the Court of Appeals majority,
our decisional law does not recognize a blanket exception to a
manufacturer’s design duty in all cases of intentional or tortious
third-party product misuse. Nevertheless, we emphasize that intentional or tortious third-party misuse may be an important
consideration in determining whether a manufacturer owes a
decisional-law design duty in a particular case, whether the
manufacturer breached that duty, and whether the manufacturer’s
breach was a proximate cause of the resulting injury.
As in other areas of the law where a defendant’s duty extends only to reasonably
foreseeable risks, the likelihood and nature of a third party’s use of
a product may be relevant in determining whether the particular
risk of harm from a product was reasonably foreseeable, and thus
whether a manufacturer owed a decisional-law design duty to avoid
that risk in a particular ca se. Cf. Doe v. Prudential-Bache/A.G.
Spanos Realty Partners, L.P., 268 Ga. 604, 605-606 (492 SE2d 865)
(1997) (concluding that, although “ questions of foreseeability”
underlying a landlord’s “duty to protect tenants from the
[foreseeable] criminal attacks of third parties” are “generally for a
jury,” the evidence of foreseeability on summary judgment could not
support a finding that the landlord owed a duty to the victim of a
criminal attack). Third-party product use may also be relevant in
determining whether a manufacturer breached its design duty if, for
example, danger from such use was so unlikely as to render
reasonable a manufacturer’s decision not to address it. See Banks,
264 Ga. at 736 n.6 (1) (noting that a relevant factor in the risk-utility
analysis is the likelihood of a danger). Finally, the likelihood and
nature of a third party’s tortious product use may be relevant in
determining whether a manufacturer’s breach can be considered a
proximate cause of the injury or whether, under the doctrine of
intervening causes, the third party’s conduct should be deemed the
sole proximate cause of the injury. See Johnson, 311 Ga. at 593>>, pp. 29-31.
Si v. da noi la corrispondente disciplina fornita dall’art. 117 cod. cons., secondo cui
<<Un prodotto e' difettoso quando non offre la sicurezza che ci si puo' legittimamente attendere tenuto conto di tutte le circostanze, tra cui: a) il modo in cui il prodotto e' stato messo in circolazione, la sua presentazione, le sue caratteristiche palesi, le istruzioni e le avvertenze fornite; b) l'uso al quale il prodotto puo' essere ragionevolmente destinato e i comportamenti che, in relazione ad esso, si possono ragionevolmente prevedere; c) il tempo in cui il prodotto e' stato messo in circolazione. 2. Un prodotto non puo' essere considerato difettoso per il solo fatto che un prodotto piu' perfezionato sia stato in qualunque tempo messo in commercio. 3. Un prodotto e' difettoso se non offre la sicurezza offerta normalmente dagli altri esemplari della medesima serie.
Si noti spt. la lettera b), naturalmente.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)