Impact of the April 2025 Georgia Tort Reform Law on Personal Injury Claims

Georgia’s 2025 Tort Reform Law, enacted through Senate Bills 68 and 69, marks a seismic shift in personal injury litigation.

---

On April 21, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bills 68 and 69 into law, enacting the most significant tort reform in the state since 2005. Framed as a means to curb “frivolous lawsuits,” stabilize insurance costs, and foster a business-friendly environment, these reforms, collectively referred to as the 2025 Georgia Tort Reform Law, have reshaped personal injury litigation. 

While proponents argue the changes promote fairness and economic growth, critics, including many plaintiff attorneys, contend that they erect substantial barriers to justice for injured individuals, particularly in premises liability and motor vehicle accident cases which constitute the highest number of injury claims in the state. 

This article explores the key provisions of the reform, their impact on personal injury claims, and the broader implications for plaintiffs, attorneys, and Georgia’s legal system.

Background: Why Tort Reform?

Georgia’s tort reform was driven by a combination of economic pressures and a reputation as a “judicial hellhole,” as labeled by the American Tort Reform Foundation due to multi-million-dollar verdicts and rising litigation costs. In 2022, tort costs in Georgia reached nearly $20 billion, translating to a $5,050 “tort tax” per household, a 27% increase since 2021. 

These costs were said to burden small businesses, drive up insurance premiums, and deter investment in underserved communities. Governor Kemp, alongside Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones and Speaker Jon Burns, championed Senate Bills 68 and 69 to address these issues, emphasizing protections for businesses while claiming to preserve the rights of legitimately injured plaintiffs. However, the practical effects of the reform tilt the scales toward defendants and insurers, creating new hurdles for those seeking compensation.

Key Provisions of the 2025 Georgia Tort Reform Law

The tort reform package introduces sweeping changes to civil litigation, affecting liability standards, damage calculations, evidentiary rules, and procedural mechanisms. Below are the primary provisions impacting personal injury claims:

• Stricter Standards for Negligent Security Claims: Senate Bill 68 redefines negligent security liability, significantly raising the bar for holding property owners accountable for injuries caused by third-party criminal acts (e.g., assaults in poorly lit parking lots). Previously, property owners were liable if they failed to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from foreseeable criminal acts. Now, plaintiffs must prove:
  • The criminal act was foreseeable, often requiring evidence of prior “substantially similar” incidents within 500 yards of the property.
  • The injury was a direct result of a known hazardous condition posing a higher-than-usual risk.
  • The property owner failed to exercise ordinary care, and this failure was the proximate cause of the injury.
  • Additionally, the law establishes a presumption that most fault lies with the third-party criminal actor, reducing the property owner’s liability. This apportionment of fault to often unidentifiable or insolvent criminals can drastically limit recovery, as plaintiffs may receive only a fraction of damages from negligent property owners.
• Truth-in-Damages for Medical Expenses: The reform addresses “phantom damages” by limiting medical expense claims to the amount actually paid or to be paid, rather than the inflated amounts billed by providers. Juries can now consider both billed and paid amounts to determine the “reasonable value” of medical care, aiming to prevent excessive awards based on inflated bills. 
• Admissibility of Seatbelt Evidence: A major change for motor vehicle accident cases, Senate Bill 68 allows evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt to be admitted at trial. This can be used to argue comparative negligence or to mitigate damages by claiming injuries would have been less severe with seatbelt use. This provision shifts responsibility onto plaintiffs, potentially reducing awards even when the defendant is primarily at fault.
• Limits on Non-Economic Damages and “Anchoring”: Non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering or emotional distress, are now harder to quantify. Senate Bill 68 prohibits attorneys from suggesting specific dollar amounts for these damages during closing arguments unless supported by trial evidence. This restriction on “anchoring” a tactic where personal injury attorneys propose high figures to influence juries aims to curb “nuclear verdicts” but may lead to lower and less predictable awards, as juries lack guidance on valuing intangible losses.
• Bifurcated Trials: The law allows either party to request bifurcation of trials into two phases: one for liability and fault apportionment, and another for damages. This applies to cases involving bodily injury or wrongful death with over $150,000 in controversy, unless the plaintiff is a minor alleging sexual offense-related injuries. Bifurcation aims to prevent jury sympathy for injured plaintiffs from influencing liability decisions, but it increases litigation complexity and costs for plaintiffs.
• Automatic Stay of Discovery: When a defendant files a motion to dismiss, discovery is automatically paused for 90 days or until the court rules. This delay can hinder plaintiffs’ ability to gather critical evidence early, potentially weakening their case and pressuring them into lower settlements.
• Elimination of Double Recovery of Attorney Fees: The reform closes a loophole allowing plaintiffs’ attorneys to recover fees multiple times for the same case. Fees are now limited to a single award, and contingent fee agreements cannot be used to prove reasonableness. This may reduce financial incentives for attorneys to take on lower-value cases.
• Restrictions on Third-Party Litigation Funding: Senate Bill 68 requires third-party litigation financiers to register and disclose their involvement, subjecting them to discovery and potential liability for awards. This increases transparency but may limit plaintiffs’ access to funding for costly litigation.

Impact of the 2025 Georgia Tort Reform Law on Personal Injury Plaintiffs

The 2025 tort reform law significantly restricts plaintiffs’ ability to secure fair compensation, particularly in the following areas:

• Reduced Recovery in Premises Liability Cases: The stringent requirements for negligent security claims make it nearly impossible to hold property owners liable unless prior similar incidents are well-documented. For example, a victim assaulted in a poorly secured parking lot may struggle to prove the owner had a “particularized warning” of an imminent threat or that “substantially similar” crimes occurred nearby. 
• Lower Damage Awards: The limits on medical expense claims and non-economic damages reduce overall compensation. For instance, a plaintiff with $100,000 in billed medical expenses but only $40,000 paid by insurance may see their award capped at the lower amount. Similarly, the ban on anchoring makes it harder to secure substantial pain and suffering awards, as juries may undervalue these losses without attorney guidance.
• Increased Procedural Hurdles: Bifurcated trials and discovery stays extend litigation timelines and costs, potentially discouraging plaintiffs with limited resources. The admissibility of seatbelt evidence in auto accident cases adds another layer of scrutiny, allowing insurers to argue comparative negligence and reduce payouts.
• Access to Justice Concerns: Critics, including attorneys like Matt Wetherington of the Wetherington Law Firm, argue that these reforms prioritize insurance companies and businesses over injured individuals. The American Insurance Association has admitted that tort reform does not guarantee lower premiums, suggesting that the primary beneficiaries are insurers who pay less on claims. 

These requirements make it significantly harder to establish liability even in wrongful death cases tied to negligent security. For example, if a loved one is killed during a robbery at a commercial property, the family may struggle to prove the property owner’s negligence unless clear evidence of prior similar crimes exists. 

The law’s presumption that most fault lies with the third-party criminal (who is often insolvent or unidentifiable) reduces the property owner’s liability, potentially limiting recovery for the deceased’s family and making hiring a wrongful death lawyer very critical for the success of your case. 

Impact of the 2025 Georgia Tort Reform Law on Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

The tort reform law poses significant challenges for attorneys representing personal injury plaintiffs:

• Fewer Viable Cases: Stricter liability standards and lower damage awards may deter attorneys from taking on smaller or less clear-cut cases, particularly in negligent security or minor injury claims. The reduced financial incentive, coupled with limits on attorney fees, may force attorneys to focus on high-value cases.
• Increased Litigation Complexity: Bifurcated trials, discovery stays, and new evidentiary rules require more strategic planning and resources. Attorneys must adapt to these procedural changes, such as preparing for seatbelt evidence arguments or navigating the 90-day discovery pause.
• Strategic Shifts: To counter insurer tactics, attorneys must emphasize robust evidence collection early in the process, including medical records, expert testimonies, and accident reconstructions. Firms like Wetherington Law Firm advocate integrating AI-driven tools to analyze insurer trends and predict settlement ranges, enhancing negotiation leverage.

Broader Implications for Georgia’s Legal System

The 2025 tort reform law aims to reduce litigation costs and create a more predictable legal environment, which proponents argue will attract businesses and lower insurance premiums. Governor Kemp has emphasized that the reforms protect Georgians’ access to civil justice while addressing excessive litigation. However, the reality is more complex:

• Economic Impact: While the law may reduce insurer payouts, there’s no guarantee of lower premiums for consumers. Small businesses, which bear nearly half of Georgia’s tort costs, may benefit from reduced liability risks, but the $20 billion tort cost burden may persist if insurers retain savings rather than passing them on.
• Urban Investment Challenges: The stricter negligent security standards may discourage lawsuits against property owners in high-crime areas, potentially encouraging investment in underserved communities. However, an urban housing advocacy group noted that sky-high liability insurance rates, driven by Georgia’s prior tort system, hindered development. The reform’s effectiveness in addressing this issue remains to be seen.
• Constitutional Concerns: Critics, including the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, argue that the law may face challenges on equal protection grounds, as it treats personal injury plaintiffs differently from other litigants (e.g., contract disputes). The bifurcation provision, in particular, may be scrutinized if it disproportionately burdens plaintiffs in complex cases.

“Georgia’s 2025 tort reform law significantly alters the balance of power in civil litigation. Though framed as a cost-control measure, it reduces jury discretion, imposes stricter liability standards, and introduces procedural hurdles like bifurcated trials. These changes not only burden plaintiffs and their attorneys but also demand greater legal precision to achieve fair outcomes in an increasingly defendant-friendly system.”

— Matt Wetherington, Wetherington Law Firm

Conclusion

Georgia’s 2025 Tort Reform Law, enacted through Senate Bills 68 and 69, marks a seismic shift in personal injury litigation. By tightening liability standards, limiting damages, and introducing procedural complexities, the reform prioritizes defendant and insurer protections, often at the expense of injured plaintiffs. While it aims to curb excessive litigation and foster economic growth, the law raises significant concerns about access to justice, particularly for victims of negligent security or auto accidents. For plaintiffs, securing fair compensation now requires meticulous evidence, strategic legal representation, and an understanding of the new legal barriers.