Shoppers in Georgia who are unable to load and secure bulky purchases onto their vehicles by themselves may notice some changes soon. They may find store employees less willing to help load and secure the items, and the employees who do help may be more cautious and vigilant.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that anyone who assists in loading something onto a vehicle has a duty to ensure that the load is securely fastened. The Supreme Court rejected an argument by the mega retailer Sam’s Club that only the operator of a vehicle should be held liable for damage sustained by an unsecured load.

The U.S. District Court in Albany, GA asked for the Supreme Court’s guidance as it considers a lawsuit filed against Sam’s by a woman who was injured when her vehicle hit a mattress that had come off a pickup truck. Amanda K. McEntyre is arguing that two Sam’s Club employees failed to properly secure the mattress to the pickup truck.

Sam’s and a business group called Georgians for Lawsuit Reform had previously argued that the statute that requires loads to be securely fastened (OGCA Section 40-6-248.1 (b) (1)) should only be applied to motor vehicle operators. If the statute is applied to store employees or others willing to help as a courtesy, they could be considered criminals if something happened along the way.

However, the ruling wasn’t a complete loss for Sam’s. The court also found that the statute doesn’t create “strict liability”. This means that the person who violates the law doesn’t automatically become liable for damages caused by an unsecured load. Plaintiffs must show that the violator’s negligence was a proximate cause of the harm.

McEntyre sued McCall after the February 2016 incident occurred and accepted a settlement. She also sued Sam’, claiming that the store was negligent because two of its employees tied the mattresses and box springs down to McCall’s truck. The complaint says that McEntyre had to undergo multiples surgeries after her shoulder and neck were injured in the accident with the loose mattress. She lost $5,542.49 in wages and had medical bills that totaled $119,151.15. After Sam’s filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, District Court Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner sent certified questions asking the Georgia Supreme Court to resolve the following unsettled questions of law:

.
1. Does Section 40-6-248.1 require a person assisting a motor vehicle operator to load merchandise on a vehicle to securely fasten the load?
2. Under the statute, can a person who assisted in loading but did not operate the vehicle be held liable to a third party who was injured as a result of the manner in which the load was secured?
3. Does the statute impose strict liability on a person who did not securely fasten a load that caused damage to another?
The Supreme Court replied yes to questions 1 and 2 and no to question 3. The court’s unanimous opinion says the plain language of the statute imposes a duty on anyone who loads items on a vehicle a duty to others on the public roads. Nothing in the statute limits that duty to only the driver of the vehicle. Additionally, any person who violates the statute can be held liable for any resulting damages. However, that doesn’t mean that strict liability applies to violators of the statute. The Supreme Court said that strict liability is generally only imposed when the circumstances involved abnormally dangerous activities. Nothing in the statute provides for strict liability in the context of a civil tort action.

“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 breach of this statutory duty, proximate causation, and damages in order to establish liability,” the opinion says.
The court went on to clarify that its findings should mitigate the tort reform group’s concerns about any practical consequences of its ruling. “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 person who assisted in loading or securing the load is liable,” the opinion says.

The case will now return to the District Court in Albany to proceed. Sam’s has also filed a lawsuit against McCall seeking reimbursement for any damages it may be required to pay as a result of the lawsuit.