On April 22, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed the Georgia Tort Reform Act, which significantly alters the playing field in personal injury cases. As discussed below, Georgia joins a small but growing list of states that have recognized the societal and economic costs of nuclear verdicts and which have taken legislative action to level the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants.
Among the many key provisions of Georgia’s Tort Reform Act, plaintiffs are no longer permitted to “argue the worth or monetary value of pain and suffering to the jury” at any time during a trial, if it “conform[s] to the evidence or reasonable deductions from the evidence in the case.” The new law limits plaintiffs’ ability to “anchor” noneconomic damages (such as physical pain, emotional distress, discomfort, anxiety, and loss of companionship). Plaintiffs may now only argue the value of noneconomic damages after the close of evidence, and arguments must be “rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages.”
Procedurally, the new law makes changes that bring Georgia’s pleading procedures more in line with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the new law, an Answer is no longer due while a Motion to Dismiss or Motion for a More Definitive Statement is pending. Under prior law, a defendant was required to file an Answer regardless of whether one of the aforementioned motions had been filed. An Answer is now due 15 days after the court denies a motion to dismiss or postpones its ruling until trial, reducing the initial pleading burden on defendants.
The new law also stays discovery until after an Answer is filed following disposition of a Motion to Dismiss. This allows a defendant who has filed a Motion to Dismiss to avoid the expenses associated with discovery while a motion is pending.
Under the old statute, evidence of seatbelt use in cases involving a motor vehicle collision was precluded. The new law reverses that rule, stating that seatbelt use can be considered “on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, or apportionment of fault or for any other purpose and may be evidence used to diminish any recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, occupancy, or operation of a motor vehicle.” This change benefits defendants in trucking cases, who can now use the plaintiff’s lack of seatbelt use to deflect or defeat claims for personal injury.
Other significant changes affect the recovery of medical expenses. The jury is now permitted to consider both the full value of the care and the actual cost in determining special damages, and a requirement has been added that litigation funding sources must be disclosed. In addition, the new law now allows a party to request bifurcation in bodily injury or wrongful death cases, with liability and damages tried in separate phases. If any liability is found, the damages stage will commence immediately with the same judge and jury. Any party can elect for bifurcation, simply by making a written request before the entry of the pretrial order. Significantly, if a demand for bifurcation is unopposed, the court must grant it—it cannot deny the request sua sponte. To oppose bifurcation, an opposing party must make a motion and show either 1) the amount of damages is less than $150,000, or 2) the claim involves a sexual offense such that testifying in two proceedings would be psychologically damaging for the plaintiff.
This means that in any bodily injury or wrongful death case involving damages over $150,000, any party has a right to elect bifurcation—likely resulting in a significant increase in bifurcated trials and significant pressure upon plaintiffs to consider early and reasonable settlements.
Significantly, and unlike the recently enacted tort reform statute in Florida, Georgia’s tort reform statute applies immediately to all actions pending as of April 22, 2025. Thus, there will be no race to the courthouse such as what occurred in Florida, where tort reform law did not apply to pending cases.
Georgia joins a list of states that have passed tort reform legislation in the past few years, such as Florida, Iowa, and Montana. For example, the 2023 Tort Reform Act in Florida halved the statute of limitations for negligence actions from four to two years and adopted a modified comparative negligence standard (instead of a pure comparative standard), and eliminated the award of attorney’s fees in most bad faith lawsuits.
In South Carolina, the state legislature is presently debating a comprehensive tort reform bill and, while the final bill has yet to be formulated, it has the potential to significantly shift the balance in trucking negligence cases. For example, the bill presently includes provisions which would dramatically alter the apportionment of liability among multiple defendants. Under current law, a plaintiff may recover full damages from one defendant even if they were not the primary party at fault. The proposed reform limits full liability to defendants who are at least 50% at fault. The reform does not apply to cases involving willful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent, or intentional misconduct, or cases involving alcohol or illegal drugs. The proposed law would also allow defendants to argue that nonparties contributed to the plaintiff’s damages. In addition, the proposed law would provide that if the plaintiff settles with any party before trial, the settlement amount will be deducted from the final damages, proportionate to the settling party’s fault percentage.
In addition, efforts to reverse previously obtained gains in tort reform have thus far been rebuffed by the courts in Pennsylvania. Perhaps most significantly, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has, for third consecutive year, vetoed legislation commonly known as the “Grieving Families Act,” which, if enacted, would result in a significant expansion of compensable damages in wrongful death actions in New York.
Finally, the Texas legislature is presently debating a tort reform bill which, perhaps most significantly, restrict noneconomic (i.e., pain and suffering) damage awards.
This is all good news for trucking companies and logistics providers and should reduce the potential for nuclear verdicts where tort reform legislation has passed. Many heavy truck accidents involve multiple defendants and attempts by plaintiffs’ attorneys to foment outrage against the industry. The aforementioned reforms will, where implemented, level the playing field for trucking defendants.
[View source.]
