Contribution is the right of one wrongdoer who has paid more than a fair share of a shared liability to recover part of that payment from another wrongdoer who also caused the harm. In a truck accident case, several parties may bear some responsibility, such as the driver, the motor carrier, a maintenance contractor, a cargo loader, or another motorist. The question of whether one of these parties can later seek contribution from the others has changed substantially in Georgia. Under current law, contribution after a judgment is the exception rather than the rule.
The shift away from joint and several liability
Historically, Georgia followed joint and several liability. Under that older system, a plaintiff could collect the full amount of a judgment from any one defendant who was liable, and that defendant could then sue the others for contribution to even out the burden. Contribution existed because one defendant could be forced to pay for harm that several defendants caused.
Georgia changed this framework with its 2005 tort reform legislation, which enacted the apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. 51-12-33. The statute fundamentally altered how multi-defendant cases work.
How the apportionment statute changed contribution
Under O.C.G.A. 51-12-33, when a case involving more than one party at fault is tried, the trier of fact assigns a percentage of fault to each person who contributed to the injury. The court then enters judgment against each defendant for that defendant’s own proportionate share of the damages. A defendant found twenty percent at fault is responsible for twenty percent of the damages, not the entire amount.
The statute states that damages apportioned in this way are not subject to any right of contribution. The reasoning is straightforward. Contribution exists to redistribute a payment when one party has paid more than its share. When the apportionment statute already limits each defendant to its own share, there is generally nothing left to redistribute. Each defendant pays only what its own percentage of fault requires. As a result, after a typical truck accident judgment in which fault has been apportioned among multiple defendants, the defendants do not have a right of contribution against one another.
The exceptions that remain
The apportionment statute did not abolish contribution entirely. Several situations fall outside its reach.
Cases that do not reach the trier of fact. The bar on contribution applies to damages that have been apportioned by the trier of fact. When a case is resolved before that point, such as through a settlement, the apportionment statute’s contribution bar does not apply in the same way, and contribution principles can still operate among parties who resolved the claim short of trial.
Concerted action. Georgia courts have recognized that the apportionment statute did not eliminate the common-law rule imposing joint and several liability on parties who act in concert. When tortfeasors act together pursuant to a common plan or design, traditional joint liability, and the contribution that accompanies it, can survive. This is a narrow category and is understood in the limited sense the common law gave it.
Single-defendant and certain other situations. The application of apportionment has been the subject of evolving case law, particularly regarding how it operates when only one defendant is named. The contours of the statute have been refined by the courts over time, and the availability of contribution depends on the specific procedural posture of the case.
Indemnity is a separate concept
Contribution should not be confused with indemnity. Contribution shifts a portion of a shared loss between parties who are each at fault. Indemnity shifts the entire loss from one party to another.
Indemnity remains important in truck accident litigation and arises in two main forms. The first is contractual indemnity, where one party has agreed by contract to indemnify another. Trucking operations frequently involve contracts among carriers, brokers, shippers, and maintenance providers, and those contracts may contain indemnity provisions. The second is common-law indemnity arising from vicarious liability. When a motor carrier is held liable purely because of the driver’s conduct, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the carrier itself did nothing wrong, the carrier may have a common-law indemnity claim against the driver who actually caused the harm. Indemnity in this setting is not the same as contribution and is not barred by the apportionment statute in the way post-verdict contribution is.
Practical effect after a judgment
The practical result of this framework is that a truck accident defendant against whom a judgment has been entered following apportionment generally pays its own share and has no post-judgment contribution claim against the other defendants. Each defendant’s exposure is fixed by the percentage of fault the trier of fact assigned to it. A defendant who believes another party shares responsibility addresses that by ensuring all potentially responsible parties and nonparties are identified during the case, so that fault can be apportioned to them, rather than by seeking contribution afterward.
Summary
After a Georgia truck accident judgment, joint tortfeasors generally are not entitled to contribution. The apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. 51-12-33, directs the trier of fact to assign a percentage of fault to each responsible party and enter judgment against each defendant for its own share, and it provides that damages apportioned in this way are not subject to contribution. Limited exceptions survive, including claims that never reach the trier of fact and cases of concerted action. Indemnity, which shifts an entire loss rather than a portion of it, is a separate doctrine that continues to apply, particularly through contracts and through the vicarious liability relationship between a carrier and its driver.
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.