SB 68 didn’t nibble around the edges. It cut straight to the heart of plaintiff-friendly litigation tactics. With swift enactment in April 2025, Georgia’s tort reform package rewired how civil trials operate across the board.
Georgia’s legal landscape has undergone a significant transformation with the enactment of Senate Bill 68 (SB 68) on April 21, 2025. This comprehensive tort reform introduces several key changes aimed at enhancing fairness and predictability for defendants in civil litigation.
Rules about Noneconomic Damages
In the past, attorneys have been able to suggest arbitrary, high-dollar figures to sway jury awards for noneconomic damages with so-called “anchoring” arguments. Under the new law, any monetary suggestions can be made only after the close of evidence and must be directly tied to the evidence presented during the trial. Moreover, if an attorney wishes to mention a specific dollar amount in a rebuttal, that figure must have been introduced in the initial closing argument. During jury selection, attorneys can inquire whether jurors are open to awarding zero damages or damages above a certain threshold, provided these figures are supported by the evidence.
Bifurcation of Liability and Damages
The legislation allows for the bifurcation of trials into separate phases:
- Phase One: Determines the defendant’s liability and the percentage of fault.
- Phase Two: If liability is established in Phase One, the same jury assesses compensatory damages.
- Phase Three: If applicable, the jury evaluates punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Any party can request bifurcation before the pre-trial order is entered. However, courts may deny bifurcation if the plaintiff was harmed by a sexual offense and would likely suffer significant psychological harm by testifying multiple times, or if the case involves less than $150,000.
Procedural Changes in Civil Cases
SB 68 introduces several procedural modifications:
- Motion to Dismiss & Discovery Stay: Defendants are no longer required to file an answer when submitting a motion to dismiss or a motion for a more definite statement. If the case is not dismissed, the answer is due 15 days after the court rules on the motion. Additionally, if a motion to dismiss is filed before an answer, discovery is automatically paused while such a motion is pending.
- Voluntary Dismissals: Plaintiffs can only voluntarily dismiss a case without prejudice once, and only within 60 days of a defendant filing an answer. After 60 days, plaintiffs can only dismiss a case by a stipulation signed by all the parties or by court order.
- Attorneys’ Fees: Parties cannot recover the same attorneys’ fees under multiple statutes unless explicitly authorized by statute or contract.
Admissibility of Seat Belt Use
Previously inadmissible, evidence regarding a plaintiff’s use or non-use of a seatbelt is now permissible in personal injury trials. This information can be used to assess comparative fault and potentially reduce damages awarded.
Changes to Negligent Security Standards
SB 68 revises the standards for holding property owners liable in negligent security cases arising from a third party’s wrongful conduct. Among other things, plaintiffs must prove the third party’s wrongful conduct was foreseeable due to a specific physical condition on the premises known to the property’s owner or occupier. The bill provides more specific requirements for establishing foreseeability and liability, with different standards for invitees and licensees. These changes apply to torts arising on or after April 21, 2025.
Medical Bills – Paid vs. Billed
When awarding medical damages, jurors are now allowed to consider health insurance and see both the billed amount and the amount actually paid for medical treatment. Jurors also may consider letters of protection or other arrangements for treatment in exchange for a promise of payment from a judgment. This provision aims to provide a more accurate representation of medical expenses, preventing inflated damage awards based on billed amounts that may not reflect plaintiffs’ actual costs. These changes apply to torts arising on or after April 21, 2025.
Pushback and Future Outlook
While SB 68 has been enacted, it is anticipated that certain provisions may face challenges. Critics argue that bifurcation could be emotionally taxing for plaintiffs, and there may be efforts to expand the psychological harm carve-out. Additionally, restrictions on anchoring may be contested as limiting advocacy tactics. Overall, these reforms shift procedural control towards defendants and could lead to lower verdict amounts in large-scale personal injury or class action litigation.
For businesses seeking to understand how Georgia’s tort reform may impact their operations, Baker Jenner offers strategic legal guidance. Contact us at (404) 400-5955 to discuss how these changes may affect your litigation strategies.
Baker Jenner LLLP
