dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the majority’s opinion is unsupportable. To the extent the majority purports to base its opinion on legal grounds, its analysis is illogical. To the extent it purports to base its decision on public policy, its analysis is equally flawed.
First, Georgia tort law, which is consistent with basic tort law, mandates a result opposite from that reached by the majority. The fundamental defect in the majority’s reasoning is its treatment of this case as one involving joint tortfeasors. This is, clearly and simply, not a joint tortfeasor case. All parties agree that the initial tortfeasor, the drunk driver, is liable for all damages flowing from the initial collision,2 including any which might have been caused by GMC. All parties agree that GMC and the initial tortfeasor are not joint tortfeasors. Rather, the plaintiff’s claim against GMC is one of enhancement. All parties agree GMC is only liable to the extent any defect in the design of its car enhanced, or aggravated, the plaintiff’s injuries over and above what would have occurred absent the alleged defect.
Both Gilson v. Mitchell, 131 Ga. App. 321 (205 SE2d 421) (1974), aff’d, 233 Ga. 453 (211 SE2d 744) (1975), and the Restatement 2d of Torts relied on by the majority are completely inapplicable to this case. Those authorities concern the law of joint tortfeasors, which all parties agree is not the situation here. The point of the Court of Appeals opinion in Gilson, affirmed by this court, was to clarify that concert of action is not necessary on the part of joint tortfeasors. In *620that case, the plaintiff claimed pain and mental suffering resulting from unnecessary medical procedures involving the insertion and removal of a catheter. None of the damages would have occurred but for the negligence of all three defendants involved. Here, however, Polston admits she would have been injured as a result of the drunk driver’s negligence alone, and that some of her injuries cannot be attributed to GMC. Gilson addresses the circumstances presented here, and, in fact, requires the plaintiff prove all elements of her claim against GMC:
If [two defendants] merely inflict separate wounds, and [plaintiff] survives, a basis for division exists, no matter how difficult the proof may be, and the torts are several.
Id. at 325.3
Likewise, the Restatement 2d of Torts, § 433 B, also relied on by the majority, has no applicability here. That section pertains to a debate among multiple tortfeasors to apportion the total harm among themselves. It has no bearing on the plaintiff’s burden of proving enhanced injuries. Here there is no apportionment. The drunk driver is responsible for all Polston’s injuries, and GMC is liable only for any enhanced injuries.4
Tort law generally, and that of our state, require the plaintiff to prove not only the existence and amount of his or her damages, but also a legally attributable causal connection between any act or omission by the defendant and the resulting injury. See Anneewakee, Inc. v. Hall, 196 Ga. App. 365, 367 (1) (396 SE2d 9) (1990). See also Prosser & Keaton on Torts, § 41, p. 269 (5th ed. 1984); Adams & Adams Georgia Law of Torts, §§ 3-1; 15-2 (1989); Bradley Center v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 200 (296 SE2d 693) (1982). Moreover, Georgia tort law is clear that a defendant is liable only for injuries caused by its acts or omissions. See Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Dawn Food Prods., 186 Ga. App. 201, 202 (3) (366 SE2d 792) (1988). If the plaintiff cannot prove her enhanced injuries, she has failed to show the alleged defect aggravated, or enhanced her injuries. If she is unable to offer evidence of what would have occurred absent the alleged defects, she simply *621has not established enhancement. In that case, she has not proved her claim against GMC.
The precise rule applicable in a case such as this was stated in Gay v. Piggly Wiggly, 183 Ga. App. 175, 179 (358 SE2d 468) (1987):
“ ‘It is true that [the original wrongdoer] could be held liable for the aggravation of the injury caused by the other defendants’ negligence, but that liability is not the result of any concept of joint wrongs but is rather the product of the familiar rule that a wrongdoer is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his tortious act, including the negligent conduct of others. Conversely, it would defy reason to hold the other defendants liable for injuries caused by the original wrongdoer which were not the consequences of their own carelessness. . . . ’”
Similarly, the correct and guiding principle to decide this case was stated in Knight v. Lowrey, 228 Ga. 452, 456 (185 SE2d 915) (1971) (language on other issues overruled in Mitchell v. Gilson, 233 Ga. 453, 455 (211 SE2d 744) (1975)):
[I]t would defy reason to hold the [actor] liable for injuries caused by the original wrongdoer which were not the consequence of his own carelessness.
Second, the majority’s public policy argument, and others proposed in support of the conclusion reached by the majority, prove to be, on any logical analysis, a house of cards. The majority states that its holding promotes auto manufacturers’ incentive to design their products in a responsible fashion. However, there are, doubtless, proper claims by plaintiffs — i.e., those where plaintiffs can prove their claims against GMC, and similar auto manufacturers, under Georgia and traditional tort law — which serve, in today’s litigious society, as more than adequate incentive for responsible design.
In my view, the only rational public policy argument in support of the majority’s conclusion would be one based on the concept of insurance since, in effect, the majority’s decision, and those of jurisdictions consistent with the majority opinion, makes GMC an insurer of the plaintiff’s damages. This was the approach takeiji by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Blankenship v. General Motors Corp., 406 SE2d 781, 784-785 (W. Va. 1991). There, the court, based on economic data, held General Motors responsible for proving what, if any, damages were caused by its negligence: “General Motors is the largest producer of automobiles in the world . . . [and is] already collecting a product liability premium every time it sells a car any where in the world. . . .” Ironically, in terms of whether the *622Mitchell or Huddell rule is preferable, the West Virginia Supreme Court agreed that
Decided December 3, 1992 Reconsideration denied December 17, 1992. Ellerin & Associates, Irwin M. Ellerin, Heidi Koch, Frederic N. Halstrom, for appellant. King & Spalding, Lanny B. Bridgers, Chilton D. Varner, Sandra E. Strippoli, Mark D. Johnson, for appellees. Hardy Gregory, Jr., Foy R. Devine, James D. Hollingsworth, William S. Stone, Glen M. Darbyshire, John M. Hewson III, amici curiae.the Huddell standard makes a great deal of sense and, perhaps, it should be the national standard in all crashworthiness cases. But it isn’t. Therefore we reject the Huddell standard because West Virginians are not going to pay product liability insurance premiums so that all the residents of [other jurisdictions] . . . can collect the benefits.
This holding is based on the assumption that the manufacturer has insured itself against risk by the collection of premiums through cost increases in its product, and the burden of proving the extent of a plaintiff’s enhanced injuries is a near impossible one. Id. at 784. However, from the record before us, we can make no such assumptions, either as to the economic analysis, or the availability of relevant expert testimony.
There is no justification in this case, on legal, or public policy grounds, for requiring the manufacturer to prove an essential element of the plaintiff’s case.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Bell and Justice Fletcher join in this dissent.
Courts and commentators sometimes have used the term “second collision” in addition to “crashworthiness,” in discussing this type of case. See generally Levenstan & Lapp, Plaintiff’s Burden Of Proving Enhanced Injury In Crashworthiness Cases: A Clash Worthy of Analysis, 38 DePaul Law Rev. 55 (1989). In general, “crashworthiness” means the protection that a passenger motor vehicle provides its passengers against injury or death as a result of a motor vehicle accident. “Second collision” has been used to refer to the collision between a passenger and the interior part of a vehicle after an initial impact, and to ejection cases in which the second collision is between the passenger and the ground. Id. at 56.
Interestingly, the federal district court judge in this case, Judge Hall, who rejected Polston’s argument that Gilson applies here, is the very same judge who authored the Gilson opinion in the Georgia Court of Appeals.
One commentator has aptly termed the issue presented in this case as one of the “false burden of proof.” Hoenig, Resolution of "Crashworthiness" Design Claims, 55 St. John’s Law Rev., 633, 699 (1981). Hoenig points out that apportionment in this type of case is “a basic conceptual error,” Id., in the plaintiff’s argument because there is no apportionment between the tortfeasors’ responsibilities for her injuries. The correct basis of determining liability is enhancement, and apportionment or divisibility have no bearing here.