The Case Of Maynard Et Al. V. Snapchat, Inc.

A manufacturer has a duty “to reduce reasonably foreseeable risks of harm posed by its products.” These words, representing the essence of the Court’s decision, were penned by Justice
Colvin as she delivered the majority opinion for Maynard et al. v. Snapchat, Inc. This case, involving the role that Snapchat played in an accident, centers around the duty owed by manufacturers. Under the governing principles of statutory and decisional law, Snapchat ought to be found liable for the accident.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiff Wentworth Maynard was rear-ended by Christal
McGee. At the time of the collision, McGee was using Snapchat’s Speed Filter which allowed users to record their speeds in real time. McGee was in the car with three other passengers

When Maynard and his wife initially filed this lawsuit, both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals found in Snapchat’s favor, determining that a manufacturer cannot be found liable for a negligent, tortious act committed by a third party. However, the Court reversed this judgment and remanded the case for further consideration after determining that a negligent-design claim extends to all reasonably foreseeable risks that may arise from the use of a product—including those that may be incurred by a third party.
Was the Court’s ruling justified? In order to arrive at the answer, it is important to first understand the four elements of a negligence claim: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Any manufacturer, including Snapchat, has a duty to reduce all foreseeable risks.
Likewise, a manufacturer may be found liable if a product is “not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended” pursuant to OGGA § 51-1-11. Under this product-liability statute, a manufacturer has a duty to ensure that its product does not have design defects. Even decisional law states that a duty is owed to select “from alternative product designs” to “reduce

Snapchat contended that it provided a warning pop-up that instructed users not to snap and drive.
However, this would render the Speed Filter pointless as the only way to achieve such high speeds would be by driving. On the contrary, the gravity of the risks that could be incurred as a result of misuse of the filter, such as accidents and death, greatly outweigh any thrill associated with reaching a certain speed on the filter. Snapchat breached its duty when it “failed to adopt a reasonable, safer design that would have reduced the foreseeable risks of harm presented by the product” (Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.).
The third element of a negligence claim, causation, requires the breach of duty to be the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiff. Although the lower courts found
McGee’s reckless driving to be an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, the intervening-cause rule “does not insulate the defendant if the defendant had reasonable grounds for apprehending that such [an] act [of a third party] would be committed.” Colvin wrote that