Once again, a lawsuit brought by a man seriously injured when he was hit by a young driver trying to record herself doing 100 miles an hour on Snapchat's "Speed Filter" was before the Georgia Court of Appeals on Tuesday, and once again, the judges were asked to revive it after a trial court threw it out.   

Attorneys for the plaintiff and Snapchat drew starkly different pictures of what legal responsibility the instant messaging app could have for the accident, with plaintiffs lawyer Naveen Ramachandrappa arguing that Snapchat users often play a "dangerous game" of trying to capture images of themselves going 100 mph or faster, and that the company tacitly "encouraged" the practice.

There have been multiple instances of serious and fatal accidents caused by drivers using the feature, he said, and young drivers are particularly susceptible to the app, which allows them to "live in the moment" by posting a still or video of the high-speed maneuver, which shortly vanishes. 

"You can send something dangerous to your friends and, poof, it goes away," said the Bondurant Mixson & Elmore partner. 

Jonathan Blavin of San Francisco's Munger, Tolles & Olson represents Snap Inc., which makes the app.

Blavin said the company had no responsibility for drivers who ignore its warning to obey traffic laws, and that arguments that it "encourages" reckless driving are both unsupported and cannot be used to establish causation or any duty to its users. 

Blavin told the appellate panel of Judges Sara Doyle, Christopher McFadden and Ken Hodges that a California court ruling in a similar case had found the allegation "too vague and speculative" to sustain a cause of action.

The case began in 2015 when 18-year-old Christal McGhee was reportedly using the Speed Filter as she drove her father's Mercedes-Benz C230 in Clayton County.

She was doing over 100 when she lost control and slammed into another car driven by Wentworth Maynard, who was 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 dismissed it, finding that the claims were barred by the federal Communications Decency Act; the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and sent it back to him.

The case was back before the court after Thacker again dismissed it, based on his finding that Snapchat had no duty to either driver, and did not proximately cause the accident. 

In Tuesday's arguments, Ramachandrappa came under some questioning as to why the app could be blamed for McGhee's accident. 

"Why do you contend that it's the Snapchat Speed Filter rather than the speedometer on the vehicle or the gas pedal?" Hodges asked.  

Ramachandrappa pointed to a 2016 article about Speed Filter's popularity among teen drivers, which mentioned that "the act of looking at a speedometer is not as fun" as posting your high-speed Snaps. 

"The app links you to your friends, so it's not just riding in your car; it's sharing it with your friends," he said. 

Georgia case-law has repeatedly said a defendant could be liable for third party's actions if the risk is foreseeable, he said. 

"We see it all the time," he said, pointing to verdicts allowing Six Flags to be held accountable for an attack near its gates, and a case where a company that made asbestos-containing products was held liable for injuries to an employee's daughter.

Courts have repeatedly found that manufacturers can be held liable for damages caused by their products, even if they were used in unintended ways, he said. 

Blavin said the Speed Filter was designed neutrally and could be used for any number of purposes, including someone in an airplane timing its speed or beachgoers sharing a laugh by showing their speed at zero.

Even if there were some indication that someone might misuse the app, he said, no proximate cause can be laid at Snapchat's feet. 

There is "no duty under the law to design a product to render it totally harmless," Blavin said.