Civil Practice; substantive and comprehensive revision of provisions regarding civil practice, evidentiary matters, damages, and liability in tort actions; provide
SB 68 is a broad civil litigation reform bill that revises Georgia law in several areas of tort practice, evidence, damages, and liability. It changes how counsel may argue noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering, tightens rules for answers, motions to dismiss, discovery stays, and voluntary dismissals, and adds limits on duplicative attorney’s fees and the use of contingent fee agreements to prove reasonableness of fees. It also changes seat belt evidence rules, creates a new statutory framework for negligent security claims, and revises how medical and healthcare expenses are proven and recovered in personal injury and wrongful death cases.
The bill’s damages provisions are especially significant. It limits medical expense recovery to the reasonable value of medically necessary care, allows evidence of amounts billed and amounts actually needed to satisfy charges through insurance or workers’ compensation, and makes letters of protection and related billing arrangements discoverable. It also authorizes bifurcated trials on fault and damages at a party’s election, with exceptions for certain sexual offense cases and lower-value cases. The bill applies prospectively to negligent security and medical-expense provisions, while other sections generally apply to pending cases unless unconstitutional.
SB 68 would substantially alter Georgia’s civil practice and tort statutes in Titles 9, 40, and 51. It adds new statutory definitions and procedures affecting pleadings, discovery, dismissal, fee recovery, evidence of seat belt nonuse, negligent security liability for owners, occupiers, and security contractors, and the calculation and proof of medical damages. The bill also narrows or channels certain common-law doctrines, including aspects of the collateral source rule and negligent security claims, and it creates new limits and defenses that would affect plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, property owners, healthcare providers, and litigants in personal injury and wrongful death cases.
The voting history suggests the bill was controversial but ultimately advanced with enough support in both chambers. It passed the Senate on the substitute after earlier amendment votes failed, passed the House by a narrower margin, and then the Senate agreed to the House substitute after amendment-related votes. That pattern indicates substantial support for civil litigation reform, but also meaningful opposition, especially around the bill’s effects on damages, discovery, and liability rules.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s restrictions on noneconomic-damages arguments, its limits on medical-expense recovery and collateral-source evidence, and its new negligent security framework, which narrows liability and requires apportionment to third-party wrongdoers. Opponents are likely to have objected to provisions seen as favoring defendants, insurers, property owners, and security contractors by making recovery harder for injured plaintiffs. Supporters likely viewed the bill as improving fairness, reducing litigation abuse, and clarifying Georgia tort law, particularly in areas involving medical billing, premises liability, and trial procedure.