Loss of consortium and pain and suffering are both categories of noneconomic damages that can arise from a serious truck collision. A common question is whether Georgia law places a dollar limit, or cap, on these damages, and whether the same rule applies to both. The short answer is that Georgia does not currently cap either category of noneconomic damages in ordinary personal injury cases, including truck accident cases. Understanding why requires looking at what these damages are, the history of damages caps in Georgia, and a decision of the Georgia Supreme Court.
What These Damages Cover
Pain and suffering is a form of noneconomic damages awarded to an injured person for the physical pain, mental anguish, and diminished quality of life caused by an injury. Unlike economic damages such as medical bills and lost wages, pain and suffering damages are not measured by receipts or invoices. Georgia law leaves the amount of pain and suffering damages to the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury.
Loss of consortium is a separate claim. It belongs to the spouse of an injured person and compensates for the loss of the companionship, society, services, and marital relationship that results from the injury to the other spouse. In Georgia, loss of consortium is recognized as a derivative claim, meaning it depends on the existence of an underlying tort against the injured spouse, but it is brought as the consortium claimant’s own claim for the consortium claimant’s own loss.
Both pain and suffering and loss of consortium are classified as noneconomic damages because neither corresponds to a fixed, calculable monetary loss.
The History of Damages Caps in Georgia
Georgia experienced a period of tort reform legislation in which the General Assembly enacted statutory caps on noneconomic damages. The most significant of these was a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions, codified at O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1, enacted in 2005. That statute placed a ceiling on the amount of noneconomic damages that could be awarded against health care providers and certain medical facilities, regardless of the amount a jury found.
The Nestlehutt Decision
In 2010, the Georgia Supreme Court decided Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt. In that medical malpractice case, a jury had awarded noneconomic damages exceeding the statutory cap, including an award for the injured patient’s pain and suffering and a separate award for her husband’s loss of consortium. The trial court was asked to reduce the noneconomic damages to the statutory limit under O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1.
The Georgia Supreme Court held that the noneconomic damages cap in O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1 was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the statute violated the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution. The court explained that the assessment of damages, including noneconomic damages, was historically a function of the jury, and that a statute requiring a court to reduce a jury’s noneconomic damages award to a legislative limit improperly nullified the jury’s constitutional role. Because the cap in O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1 was struck down, it does not operate to limit noneconomic damages in the cases it once covered.
The Current Rule for Truck Accident Cases
A truck accident case is an ordinary negligence action rather than a medical malpractice action. The medical malpractice cap addressed in Nestlehutt never applied to general motor vehicle negligence claims in the first place. Combined with the constitutional reasoning in Nestlehutt, the result is that Georgia law does not impose a statutory cap on noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering and loss of consortium, in truck accident cases. A jury determines the amount of these damages under the enlightened conscience standard, and that determination is not reduced to a legislative ceiling.
Because there is no cap on either category, the question of whether loss of consortium is subject to the same cap as pain and suffering is, in current Georgia practice, answered by the fact that neither is subject to a cap at all. The two categories are treated alike in that respect.
Punitive Damages Are Different
It is important to distinguish punitive damages, which are not the same as either pain and suffering or loss of consortium. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the injured person; they are intended to punish and deter conduct showing willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or an entire want of care that raises the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. Georgia does cap punitive damages. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1, punitive damages in many tort cases are limited to $250,000, although the statute provides exceptions, including for product liability cases and for cases in which the defendant acted with a specific intent to cause harm or acted while under the influence of alcohol or certain drugs. The statute also directs that a portion of a punitive award in certain cases is paid to the state. This punitive damages cap is a separate matter and does not apply to compensatory noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering or loss of consortium.
Limits and Other Considerations
While there is no cap on noneconomic damages, other rules can affect the amount an injured person or a spouse ultimately recovers. Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence rule under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, which reduces a plaintiff’s recovery in proportion to that plaintiff’s share of fault and bars recovery entirely if the plaintiff’s fault is fifty percent or more. The apportionment statute also assigns each defendant responsibility according to that defendant’s percentage of fault. In addition, the practical availability of compensation can be affected by the limits of applicable insurance coverage and the assets of the responsible parties. These factors operate independently of any damages cap.
Conclusion
In Georgia truck accident cases, loss of consortium and pain and suffering are both noneconomic damages, and neither is subject to a statutory cap. The medical malpractice cap on noneconomic damages was held unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court in Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt as a violation of the right to a jury trial, and that cap never extended to ordinary motor vehicle negligence claims. The amount of these damages is left to the jury. The separate statutory cap on punitive damages found in O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1 does not apply to compensatory noneconomic damages.
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.