Georgia enacts sweeping tort reform: Key takeaways from SB 68

On April 21, 2025, Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 68 (SB 68) into law, marking a significant shift in Georgia’s civil litigation landscape. Aimed at shedding the state’s “judicial hellhole” reputation, the law introduces both procedural and substantive reforms, particularly in response to the rise of nuclear verdicts and expanding scope of premises liability, signaling a significant shift that should be welcomed by insurers. Key changes include:

• Admissibility of Seatbelt Evidence
• Limits on Special Damages
• New Standards for Negligent Security
• Removal of Anchoring
• Limits on Non-Economic Damages Presentation
• Civil Procedure Reforms (including motions to dismiss, dismissal restrictions and binding arbitration options)
• Restrictions on Double Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees

This article highlights the key provisions of SB 68 and their anticipated impact on personal injury and wrongful death litigation in Georgia.

I. Civil Litigation Reforms

Streamlining Motions to Dismiss and Discovery Stays. SB 68 amends O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12, allowing defendants to file a motion to dismiss instead of an answer. Previously, defendants had to file an answer within 30 days, even if a motion to dismiss was pending. Defendants could also face discovery before the court ruled on the pending motion. Now, discovery is automatically stayed upon filing a motion to dismiss. If no ruling is issued within 90 days, either party may seek to lift or modify the stay for good cause. If the motion is denied or deferred, the defendant must file an answer within 15 days of the court’s order.

Restrictions on Voluntary Dismissals. Under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41, plaintiffs could previously dismiss a case without prejudice at any time before the first witness was sworn. Now, plaintiffs may dismiss without court approval only within 60 days after the defendant answers. A second dismissal, whether voluntary or by court order, results in a dismissal with prejudice.

Single Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees. To prevent duplicative fee awards, SB 68 limits the recovery of attorney’ fees, court costs and litigation expenses to a single award per case, regardless of the number of claims or statutory grounds. It also prohibits recovery under multiple provisions unless explicitly authorized by law. Additionally, when reasonable attorneys’ fees are recoverable, SB 68 bars using a contingent fee agreement as evidence of reasonableness.

Option to Bifurcate Trials. To streamline proceedings and prevent jury prejudice, SB 68 allows either party in bodily injury and wrongful death cases to request bifurcation into separate phases for liability and damages, provided the request is made before the pretrial order. Phase one would address liability and fault, while phase two would cover compensatory damages, including special damages and pain and suffering. Bifurcation may be denied if the plaintiff was injured in a sexual offense and would suffer significant distress from testifying twice, or if the amount in controversy is under $150,000.

II. Liability and Damages Reform

Admissibility of Seat Belt Evidence. SB 68 removes the long-standing “seat belt gag rule” that prevented the use of seat belt non-use as evidence in motor accident cases. It now allows evidence of whether a plaintiff was wearing a seat belt to be considered in assessing negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk and apportionment of fault. However, courts can exclude this evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Additionally, the failure to wear a seat belt cannot be used to cancel insurance coverage or increase premiums.

Anchoring of Non-Economic Damages. SB 68 restricts plaintiffs from “anchoring” non-economic damages by suggesting specific dollar amounts for pain and suffering during trial. This tactic, often used in closing arguments, can introduce arbitrary, inflated figures that influence juries and contribute to “nuclear verdicts.” Attorneys may argue the monetary value of such damages only during closing arguments, and only if supported by evidence. A specific value cannot be presented in closing unless introduced during opening statements. If violated and objected to, the court must rebuke the attorney, instruct the jury to disregard the argument or even order a mistrial.

Elimination of Phantom Damages. SB 68 allows defendants to present evidence of the actual amounts paid by health insurers for medical care, limiting reliance on inflated billed amounts. Medical expense recovery is now capped at the reasonable value of necessary care, which may be demonstrated through both billed charges and actual payments, regardless of insurance involvement. Expenses under Letters of Protection and related assignments are discoverable. Courts, however, may instruct juries to minimize prejudice and clarify that insurance coverage is not at issue.

Significant Changes in Negligent Security Claims. SB 68 introduces substantial changes to negligent security liability in Georgia. Previously governed by general premises liability law, which required property owners to take reasonable steps to protect lawful visitors from foreseeable third-party criminal acts, SB 68 now provides a more defined legal framework. It distinguishes standards for invitees and licensees, permits the apportionment of fault to third-party criminal actors and establishes specific exemptions for landowners.

Liability for Invitees: Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51, a property owner or occupier may be liable to invitees for negligent security only if five conditions are met: (1) the criminal or wrongful conduct was foreseeable; (2) the injury was a foreseeable result; (3) the conduct was linked to a known hazardous condition on the property that posed a higher than usual risk; (4) the owner/occupier failed to exercise ordinary care to address the condition or keep the premises safe; and (5) this failure was the proximate cause of the injury.

Liability for Licensees: Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-52, a property owner or occupier is liable to a licensee for third-party injuries only if: the wrongful act was reasonably foreseeable due to a specific prior warning; the injury was a foreseeable result; the act exploited a known hazardous condition on the property; the owner/occupier wilfully and wantonly failed to address the risk; and that failure was the proximate cause of the injury.

Standard / Duty of Care: Owners/occupiers are not required to exercise extraordinary care or assume the responsibilities of law enforcement or public safety. To determine if reasonable care was exercised, factors to consider include the security measures in place at the time of injury, the need and practicality of additional measures, whether they could have prevented the injury and the owner/occupier’s responsibilities compared to those of the government or law enforcement.

Additional Defenses to Negligent Security Claims. SB 68 further limits liability for negligent security in several situations. Property owners or occupiers are not liable when the injured person was a trespasser, the injury occurred off the premises or the wrongful act happened in a place where the owner had no legal authority to exclude the third party. Liability is also excluded if the third party was a tenant or guest of a tenant who was being evicted, if the injured party was committing a felony or theft-related misdemeanour or if the injury took place in a single-family residence. Additionally, owners are protected from liability if they made a reasonable effort—such as calling 911—to notify law enforcement of a specific threat of imminent harm.

Apportionment of Damages. The trier of fact must reasonably apportion fault among the owner or occupier, any third party whose wrongful conduct caused the injury and any other person subject to apportionment. Parties may not present evidence or arguments about a third party’s criminal history or background, the financial resources of any party or non-party, or how apportionment affects the plaintiff’s damages. If the jury fails to reasonably apportion fault, the court shall set aside the verdict and order a new trial on liability and damages.

Security Contractors. If a security contractor assumes a duty to investigate or provide services, they may be held liable for negligent security only to the same extent, and subject to the same limitations, as the property owner or occupier. Contractors cannot be held more liable than the owner or occupier.

Thus, these changes limit the circumstances under which a plaintiff can file a negligent security claim. Specifically, the conditions under which an owner or occupier can be held liable for third-party criminal acts on their premises are now significantly narrower.

Application and Effective Date. The reforms to negligent security claims and the determination of phantom damages apply to claims that arise after the April 21, 2025 effective date. All other provisions of the legislation apply retroactively to existing lawsuits, and also all future lawsuits.

While the full impact of SB 68 is still unfolding, it marks a significant shift toward a more balanced litigation environment, aimed at curbing excessive claims, reducing litigation costs and providing clearer standards, especially in negligent security cases.