The Impact of Georgia’s New Tort Reform Laws on Personal Injury Cases

Georgia recently passed significant tort reform legislation that shifts how personal injury cases are handled throughout the state. Tort reform initiatives vary across states, but proponents often claim that these are aimed at curbing frivolous litigation, keeping insurance affordable for consumers, and making the system easier to navigate. Opponents often claim that the actual purpose of tort reform is to benefit insurance companies at the expense of regular people.

However, if you’re an accident victim, these legislative changes could change how your personal injury case is handled. Learn more about recent changes and what they mean for your case by calling Harris Lowry Manton today.

What is tort reform?

Many states have adopted tort reform in recent years, so Georgia certainly isn’t alone in its efforts. However, it is the most recent state to overhaul how civil lawsuits are handled. Common tort reform measures include:

• Caps on jury awards for pain and suffering
• Caps on jury awards for punitive damages
• Limits on the usage of certain types of evidence
• Changes in procedural rules to speed up cases

Supporters of tort reform believe that it keeps insurance premiums reasonable, protects businesses from frivolous lawsuits, and streamlines filing requirements for victims. Those against tort reform believe that these efforts limit victims’ rights and put insurers’ needs over victims’ right to compensation. Georgia’s recent tort reform laws have stirred up this debate once again.

Key changes in Georgia’s new tort reform laws

These changes are outlined in S.B. 68, with the exception of the law regarding litigation funding, which is part of S.B. 69. Both bills were signed into law in April 2025.

When non-economic damages are argued

Prior to these new changes, plaintiffs could argue the worth and monetary value of pain and suffering at any point during a trial, as long as it was supported by the evidence presented or could be inferred from the evidence. Now, the value of non-economic damages can only be argued after the close of evidence.

Voluntary dismissal period reduced

The timeframe to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit is now shortened to 60 days after the defendant files an answer. Previously, voluntary dismissal was permitted any time prior to the swearing in of the first witness. The goal of this change is to keep plaintiffs from dismissing a lawsuit after significant time has been put into litigation, giving them six more months to re-file. Plaintiffs could dismiss late, regroup, and come back to re-file—significantly driving up legal expenses for the defendant.

Seatbelt usage as evidence

Previously, juries could not consider seatbelt usage as evidence in motor vehicle collision cases. This is no longer the case; seatbelt use can be considered when discussing negligence, comparative negligence, causation, and apportionment of fault. A victim who was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of an accident may see their compensation reduced.

Double recovery of attorneys’ fees

Although Georgia didn’t have any laws specifically allowing plaintiffs to argue for double recovery, there were no statutes specifically prohibiting it. With this change, double recovery of attorneys’ fees—as well as other expenses of litigation—is barred.

Bifurcation of bodily injury damages

A new statute allows either party to request bifurcation in cases involving bodily injury and wrongful death. This splits the case into two stages. Liability is determined first, and if the jury determines the defendant to have any liability, the damages stage happens right away with the same judge and jury.

Either party can request bifurcation before the trial. If one party opposes it, they must prove that either the total damages are less than $150,000 or that the case involves a sexual offense and the victim would suffer serious emotional distress and psychological harm from testifying twice. In the latter scenario, the court would opt against bifurcation to prevent psychological damage to the plaintiff. In practice, this change could lead to an increase in bifurcated trials.

Changes to negligent security claims

Previously, a victim with a negligent security claim would bring that claim against the liable party under negligence and premises liability theories. Georgia law now specifically addresses negligent security claims. If a victim has a claim of negligent security, they have to prove that the property owner or security contractor had a specific warning of imminent harm or should have reasonably known that harm was likely to occur due to prior incidents or foreseeability because of a specific condition of the premises.

Litigation funding changes

S.B. 69 was enacted to address the number of third parties funding a plaintiff or their attorney in exchange for repayment based on the outcome of litigation. Entities that fund litigation in this way are required to register with the Department of Banking and Finance. This bill also has extensive limitations and requirements for foreign financiers investing in litigation funding.

What victims and their attorneys can do

On their own, each of these changes may seem relatively minor. But in any given case, one or multiple changes could have a significant impact on how your case is tried and how your attorney prepares. The best thing you can do is to work with a personal injury lawyer who practices this type of law day in and day out; they are the ones who will know exactly what this legislation covers, how it affects your case, and how to adjust their approach to account for these changes.

Take the first step in your personal injury claim with Harris Lowry Manton

Whether you’ve been injured by a defective product, a car accident, a slip and fall, or another type of accident, having the right legal representation is crucial. Explore your legal options right now by calling us or connecting with us online.