The Speed Filter is a stylized speedometer superimposed on a picture of the Snapchat user showing their speed at the time the picture is taken.

The complaint asserted that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by Chrystal McGhee, then 18, who was "misusing the Speed Filter while driving at an excessive rate of speed," wrote Doyle, with the concurrence of Judge Kenneth Hodges.

"Thus, any liability on the part of Snapchat is predicated on McGee's conduct. Under Georgia law, there is no 'general legal duty to all the world not to subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm,'" said Doyle, citing a 2019 Georgia Supreme Court decision in Ga. Dept. of Labor v. McConnell, 305 Ga. 812.

In a dissent, Chief Judge Christopher McFadden said the claims by plaintiff Wentwotrth Maynard and his wife should proceed.

"There is nothing novel about the legal questions before us," wrote McFadden. "The Maynards' allegations fall squarely within the requirements for stating a claim for defective design implicating risk-utility analysis."

"The majority holds that the duty to adopt a reasonable design 'does not extend to the intentional (not accidental) misuse of the product in a tortious way by a third party,'" McFadden said. "In so holding the majority creates new law."

The case began when McGee slammed into Maynard's vehicle in Clayton County in 2015, leaving him severely injured.

Maynard and his wife sued California-based Snapchat for negligence and loss of consortium in Spalding County State Court.

In 2016, Judge Josh Thacker granted Snapchat's motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims were barred by the federal Communications Decency Act.

In 2018 the Court of Appeals reversed that decision in an opinion written by Judge William Ray II with the concurrence McFadden and Judge Brian Rickman.

In January Thacker again tossed the case, ruling that Snapchat had no duty to either driver and did not proximately cause the accident, and the Maynards again appealed.

In upholding Thacker's dismissal, Doyle said "Georgia law does not impose a general duty to prevent people from committing torts while misusing a manufacturer's product.

"Although manufacturers have 'a duty to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing its products so as to make products that are reasonably safe for intended or foreseeable uses,' this duty does not extend to the intentional (not accidental) misuse of the product in a tortious way by a third party."

The plaintiffs claim the Speed Filter constitutes an "inherent incentive to engage in risky behavior, but they only point to the attractiveness of the product itself, not to any specific reward system or status ranking predicated on misusing it while driving or generating higher speeds," Doyle wrote.

McFadden said the majority opinion was "problematic" and cited "no case from our Supreme Court or this court that relieves manufacturers of that duty simply because a plaintiff's injuries resulted from a third party's intentional misuse of the product."

"The Maynards' allegations that Snapchat failed to adopt a reasonable design, leading to a foreseeable use or misuse of the Speed Filter, thus foreseeably causing their injuries, is sufficient to state a claim," McFadden wrote.

Snapchat's counsel includes Lori Cohen, Andrew Smith and Sean Jessee of Greenberg Traurig and Jonathan Blavin, Anne Conley and and John Major of Munger, Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles.

There was no immediate response to a query from Cohen or Blavin, who argued the appeal, on Friday.

Appellate counsel for the plaintiffs includes Naveen Ramachandrappa, Michael Terry and Amanda Seals of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore; Michael Neff, Darryl Adams, Mary Cremer and Timothy Peagler of the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff; and Henningsen Injury Attorneys principal Todd Henningsen.

Ramachandrappa, who argued the appeal, said the decision will be appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.

In an emailed statement, his team said McFadden got it right.

"Considering the majority's creation of new and unprecedented products-liability law and the grave danger posed by Snapchat's Speed Filter, we will be filing a petition for certiorari," it said. "Even Snapchat has previously recognized that 'this case is precedent setting for the entire mobile app and product industry.' Snapchat should not be given a pass to put its profits over public safety."

"Not only have the Maynards' lives been forever altered," said Ramachandrappa, "but many other families have needlessly had loved ones die or be seriously injured because of Snapchat's Speed Filter."