Some Georgia truck accident lawsuits name more than one defendant because more than one party may have contributed to the collision. A common example is a case in which a plaintiff sues both a trucking company, for negligence in operating or maintaining the truck, and a manufacturer, for an alleged defect in the truck or one of its components. These cases involve overlapping but legally distinct theories of liability, and Georgia procedure has developed ways to manage them.
Two different kinds of claims in one lawsuit
A claim against a trucking company usually rests on negligence. The plaintiff alleges that the company or its driver breached a duty of reasonable care, for example through unsafe driving, inadequate maintenance, negligent hiring, or violation of federal motor carrier safety regulations. A claim against a manufacturer usually rests on product liability. Georgia recognizes product liability claims under several theories, including strict liability for defective products under O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-11, as well as negligence and breach of warranty.
Because these theories are distinct, the evidence and proof requirements differ. A negligence claim focuses on conduct and the standard of reasonable care. A strict product liability claim focuses on whether the product was defective and not merchantable and reasonably suited for its intended use when it left the manufacturer’s control, regardless of how careful the manufacturer was. Georgia law generally allows a plaintiff to pursue both kinds of claims in a single action when the facts support them.
Joinder of parties and claims
The Georgia Civil Practice Act permits the joinder of multiple defendants in one lawsuit when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and share common questions of law or fact. A single collision that allegedly involved both operator negligence and a product defect can satisfy that standard. Trying the claims together promotes efficiency and avoids inconsistent results that might come from separate trials about the same crash.
A defendant who is sued may also bring others into the case. If the trucking company contends that a third party, such as a parts manufacturer or a maintenance contractor, is responsible, it may use third-party practice under O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-14 to implead that party, or it may identify the party for purposes of fault allocation as described below.
Apportionment of fault among defendants
Georgia uses an apportionment system for allocating fault. Under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, when an action is brought against one or more persons for injury to person or property, the trier of fact apportions the award of damages among the persons who are liable according to each person’s percentage of fault. The statute was amended in 2022 so that apportionment applies in actions brought against “one or more persons,” which expanded its reach.
In a case naming both a trucking company and a manufacturer, this means the jury may be asked to assign a percentage of fault to each defendant. The jury may also consider the fault of the plaintiff and, under the statute and subject to procedural requirements, the fault of certain nonparties. Each defendant found liable is generally responsible for the share of damages corresponding to its own percentage of fault, rather than automatically being responsible for the entire judgment.
The statute also addresses the plaintiff’s own fault. Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence rule. A plaintiff whose share of fault is 50 percent or more is barred from recovery, and a plaintiff whose share is less than 50 percent has the recovery reduced in proportion to that fault.
Discovery in multi-defendant cases
When a trucking company and a manufacturer are both defendants, discovery typically runs along two tracks. Discovery directed at the trucking company often seeks driver qualification files, hours of service records, electronic logging device data, maintenance and inspection records, and corporate safety policies. Discovery directed at the manufacturer often seeks design documents, testing records, recall and complaint history, and information about the specific component at issue.
Defendants in the same case may have aligned interests on some issues and opposing interests on others. The trucking company and the manufacturer may each contend that the other is primarily responsible, a dynamic sometimes described as cross-blame among co-defendants. Co-defendants may file cross-claims against one another, and they may also seek contribution or indemnity depending on their legal relationships and any contracts between them.
Federal regulations and product standards
Truck accident cases that involve both kinds of defendants can also implicate two separate regulatory backgrounds. The conduct of a motor carrier and its driver is governed in part by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The design and manufacture of a commercial vehicle and its components may implicate federal motor vehicle safety standards. These regulatory frameworks can be relevant to the standard of care and to the defect analysis, though the way they are used as evidence depends on the rules of evidence and the specific claims.
Trial structure
A 2025 Georgia law concerning the structure of civil trials allows a party in certain bodily injury and wrongful death cases to request that the trial be divided into separate phases, for example a phase on fault and a phase on damages. Whether and how a trial proceeds in phases depends on the statute, the type of case, and the trial court’s handling of the request. In a multi-defendant case, the verdict form is typically structured so that the jury can make findings as to each defendant and allocate fault under the apportionment statute.
Summary
Georgia courts handle cases against both a trucking company and a manufacturer by allowing distinct negligence and product liability claims to proceed together when they arise from the same crash, by managing two tracks of discovery, and by using the apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, to allocate fault among the parties found liable. The result is that each liable defendant is generally responsible for damages in proportion to its own share of fault, with the plaintiff’s recovery governed by Georgia’s modified comparative negligence rule.
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.