A per diem argument is a closing-argument technique in which an attorney suggests a daily, monthly, or yearly dollar value for a plaintiff’s pain and suffering and invites the jury to multiply that value across the period the plaintiff has suffered and is expected to suffer. Whether such arguments are permitted in Georgia, and on what terms, has changed in recent years. This guide explains the current rules as they apply to a truck accident trial.
The Long-Standing Georgia Rule
For many years, Georgia law permitted counsel to argue the monetary worth of pain and suffering to the jury. The governing statute, O.C.G.A. 9-10-184, addresses argument on the value of pain and suffering in civil personal injury trials. Under the historical version of the statute and the case law interpreting it, counsel could argue the value of pain and suffering as long as the argument conformed to the evidence or to reasonable deductions from the evidence.
Georgia courts treated the per diem or unit-of-time argument as a permissible form of this. The reasoning was that placing a unit value on pain and suffering is simply a way of helping a jury evaluate a long period of suffering by breaking it into smaller time increments. Georgia courts also held that a per diem argument did not require reduction to present cash value, because assigning a unit value to pain and suffering was viewed as an evaluative aid rather than a precise, reducible measurement. Pain and suffering is a noneconomic loss with no fixed market price, so the jury’s role was to assign a figure using its enlightened conscience, guided by the evidence.
The 2025 Statutory Change
Georgia enacted significant tort reform legislation in 2025. Among its provisions, Senate Bill 68 revised O.C.G.A. 9-10-184. The amendment became effective in April 2025 and was made applicable to causes of action pending on its effective date, subject to constitutional limits.
The revised statute changed how counsel may discuss the value of noneconomic damages, a category that includes pain and suffering. Under the amended law, the focus is on whether any argument about the monetary value of noneconomic damages is rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages presented in the case. The amendment is generally understood to bar what is often called anchoring, meaning references to objects, amounts, or values that have no rational connection to the facts proven by the evidence. Examples of anchoring that the reform was intended to curtail include comparisons to the salary of a professional athlete or the price of a work of art, offered to set a high baseline for an award.
Sequencing of Argument
The amended statute also addresses the order of argument. Where counsel is entitled to both an opening and a concluding closing argument, the revised law restricts arguing the monetary value of noneconomic damages in the concluding argument unless that value was also argued in the opening portion. The statute further provides that counsel may not argue a different monetary value in the concluding argument than was argued in the opening argument. This is intended to prevent a party from raising or shifting a damages figure after the opposing side has had its only chance to respond.
What This Means for Per Diem Arguments
The per diem technique itself, breaking a span of suffering into daily or yearly units, has not been categorically prohibited by name. What the 2025 reform changed is the standard governing any argument about the monetary value of noneconomic damages. After the amendment, such an argument must be rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages in the case, and it must be free of comparisons or anchors unconnected to the proven facts. A per diem figure that is grounded in the evidence about the nature, severity, and duration of the plaintiff’s pain stands on different footing than a figure pulled from an unrelated source. The sequencing rule also constrains when and how a value may be presented across the two halves of closing argument.
Because the amendment is recent, its precise contours continue to be worked out through trial court rulings and appellate interpretation. The exact line between a permissible evidence-based valuation and an impermissible anchor is the kind of issue Georgia courts will continue to refine.
Application in Truck Accident Trials
Truck accident cases often involve severe, long-lasting injuries, which historically made per diem and unit-of-time arguments common in trials of this type. Nothing in Georgia law makes the rules for noneconomic damages argument different for truck cases than for other personal injury cases; O.C.G.A. 9-10-184 applies to civil personal injury trials generally. The same requirement applies: any argument about the monetary value of pain and suffering must be tied to the evidence of the plaintiff’s noneconomic harm and must avoid unrelated anchors.
The Role of the Jury
Even with these argument rules, the determination of pain and suffering damages remains with the jury. Georgia law leaves the valuation of noneconomic harm to the jury’s enlightened conscience, informed by the evidence. Argument by counsel, whether framed as a per diem figure or otherwise, is a suggestion the jury may accept, modify, or reject. The trial court oversees the argument to keep it within statutory bounds, and a verdict that is grossly excessive or inadequate remains subject to post-trial review.
Summary
Per diem arguments for pain and suffering have a long history in Georgia and were treated as a permissible way to help juries evaluate prolonged suffering. The 2025 amendment to O.C.G.A. 9-10-184 reshaped the framework: any argument about the monetary value of noneconomic damages must now be rationally related to the evidence and must avoid anchoring to unrelated values, and the timing of such arguments across opening and concluding closing argument is restricted. A per diem argument grounded in the evidence about a truck accident plaintiff’s pain remains consistent with that framework, while one based on unrelated comparisons does not. The ultimate valuation continues to rest with the jury.
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.