Georgia follows a system known as modified comparative negligence, set out in O.C.G.A. 51-12-33. This rule governs how fault is divided among the parties involved in an incident and how that division affects the amount of money a claimant can recover. In a wrongful death case, the rule can reduce the recovery and, in some circumstances, eliminate it entirely. This guide explains how modified comparative negligence works and how it applies when the claim involves a death.
What Modified Comparative Negligence Means
Comparative negligence is a method of allocating responsibility when more than one party contributed to an injury. Rather than treating fault as all or nothing, the law assigns each responsible party a percentage of the total fault.
Georgia’s version is called “modified” because it includes a cutoff point. The rule has two main effects. First, a claimant’s recovery is reduced in proportion to the claimant’s own share of fault. Second, if the claimant’s share of fault reaches a certain threshold, recovery is barred completely. O.C.G.A. 51-12-33 sets that threshold and provides that a claimant is not entitled to receive any damages if the claimant is fifty percent or more responsible for the injury or damages claimed.
How the Rule Applies in a Wrongful Death Case
In a wrongful death claim, the relevant fault is generally the fault of the deceased person. The question is whether, and to what extent, the deceased person’s own conduct contributed to the fatal incident. The trier of fact, typically a jury, determines the percentage of fault attributable to each responsible actor, including the deceased person.
If the deceased person is found to bear some fault that is less than fifty percent, the wrongful death recovery is reduced by that percentage. For example, if the full value of the life is determined to be a particular amount, and the deceased person is found twenty percent at fault, the recovery is reduced by twenty percent, leaving eighty percent.
If the deceased person is found to be fifty percent or more at fault, the modified comparative negligence rule bars recovery entirely. In that situation the wrongful death claim cannot succeed regardless of how the value of the life is calculated.
The Reduction Affects the Beneficiaries’ Recovery
An important point in the wrongful death setting is whose fault is being measured and who bears the consequences. The fault analyzed is the deceased person’s own conduct, not the conduct of the surviving family members who are entitled to the recovery. The statutory beneficiaries, generally the surviving spouse and children, are not themselves found personally at fault for the incident.
However, the reduction still falls on the beneficiaries’ recovery. Because the wrongful death claim is derived from the death of the deceased person, the deceased person’s share of fault reduces the amount the beneficiaries can collect. The reduction applies to the full value of the life and to the wrongful death recovery as a whole. In effect, the deceased person’s percentage of fault is carried into the claim that the family members bring.
Allocation of Fault Among Multiple Parties
O.C.G.A. 51-12-33 also addresses how fault is divided when several parties contributed to the incident. The trier of fact assesses the percentage of fault attributable to each party who is responsible, and each defendant is generally responsible only for the share of damages corresponding to that defendant’s own percentage of fault. The statute also allows fault to be assessed against certain nonparties whose conduct contributed to the injury, subject to the statute’s procedural requirements. The total fault, including any fault assigned to the deceased person, is allocated among all responsible actors.
This allocation matters in wrongful death cases because the deceased person’s percentage is one slice of a larger pie. The more fault assigned to the deceased person, the smaller the recovery, and once the deceased person’s slice reaches fifty percent, the claim is barred under the modified comparative negligence threshold.
Damages Affected by the Rule
The comparative negligence reduction applies to wrongful death damages, which are measured as the full value of the life of the decedent. Georgia courts describe the full value of the life as including both an economic component, reflecting the financial value of the life, and an intangible component, reflecting the value of living itself. A comparative fault finding reduces this overall recovery by the deceased person’s percentage of fault.
A separate survival action brought by the estate under O.C.G.A. 9-2-41 is also a tort claim and is likewise subject to comparative negligence principles, because the survival action stands in the shoes of the personal injury claim the deceased person could have brought.
A Question Decided on the Evidence
Whether the deceased person bore any fault, and how much, is a factual question decided on the evidence in each case. Modified comparative negligence does not assume fault on the part of the deceased person. It simply provides the framework that applies if the evidence shows the deceased person contributed to the incident. Where there is no evidence of fault on the part of the deceased person, the rule has no reducing effect and the recovery is not diminished on that basis.
Summary
Georgia’s modified comparative negligence rule, found in O.C.G.A. 51-12-33, affects wrongful death claims by tying the recovery to the deceased person’s share of fault. If the deceased person is partly at fault but less than fifty percent, the wrongful death recovery is reduced proportionally. If the deceased person is fifty percent or more at fault, the rule bars the claim entirely. The reduction is borne by the statutory beneficiaries even though they are not personally at fault, because the claim is derived from the death of the person whose conduct is being measured.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.