In a multi-defendant injury case, the term joint and several liability describes a rule under which each responsible defendant can be held liable for the full amount of a plaintiff’s damages, leaving the defendants to sort out among themselves how the burden is divided. A natural question is whether a Georgia jury can be told about this rule and its consequences. Answering the question requires understanding a significant change Georgia made to its liability system, because in most modern Georgia cases joint and several liability no longer applies in the way it once did.
Georgia largely replaced joint and several liability with apportionment
As part of the Tort Reform Act of 2005, Georgia enacted O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, its apportionment statute. This statute abolished joint and several liability in most circumstances and replaced it with a system of apportionment.
Under the apportionment framework, the trier of fact, which in a jury trial is the jury, assigns a percentage of fault to each person who contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. Each defendant is then generally liable only for the portion of the damages corresponding to that defendant’s own percentage of fault. A defendant who is found ten percent at fault is generally responsible for ten percent of the damages, not for the entire amount. This is fundamentally different from traditional joint and several liability, under which any one defendant could be made to pay the whole judgment.
The statute also allows fault to be considered against nonparties in appropriate circumstances, and it has been amended over time. Notably, the statute was amended after a Georgia Supreme Court decision had limited apportionment in single-defendant cases, and the amended statute allows apportionment in actions brought against one or more persons. Because of this framework, most Georgia injury trials today involve apportionment rather than classic joint and several liability.
What the jury is actually instructed to do
Because Georgia uses apportionment, the jury in a typical multi-defendant case is instructed on the apportionment process itself. The jury is told, in substance, to determine the total amount of damages and to assign a percentage of fault to each responsible person. Georgia maintains a set of pattern jury instructions for civil cases, and these pattern charges include instructions that guide a jury through finding damages and allocating fault under the apportionment statute.
The jury, in other words, is given the legal framework it needs to perform its task. It is told how to allocate fault and how that allocation translates into the verdict. The verdict form in an apportionment case commonly asks the jury to state the total damages and the percentage of fault for each party, so the allocation is built directly into the jury’s findings.
Instructing on the ultimate financial consequences
A separate question is whether the jury should be told about the downstream financial consequences of its allocation, such as how percentages convert into dollar obligations, how a defendant’s share is collected, or what happens if one defendant cannot pay. As a general matter, Georgia trial practice distinguishes between instructing the jury on the law it must apply to reach a verdict and informing the jury about consequences that are outside its proper function.
The jury’s role is to find the facts, including the total damages and the percentage of fault attributable to each party. The mathematical computation of each defendant’s dollar obligation, and the entry of judgment, follow from the jury’s findings and are matters the court handles. Trial courts are generally cautious about instructions that invite the jury to consider matters beyond its fact-finding role, because such instructions can distract the jury from its task or encourage it to decide a case based on the anticipated financial outcome rather than the evidence.
What a jury is properly instructed on is the apportionment law it must apply. Whether any further explanation of consequences is appropriate is a matter committed to the trial court, which controls the content of the jury charge, and the propriety of any particular instruction depends on the facts of the case and on Georgia law governing jury instructions.
Situations where some form of joint liability can still arise
Even though apportionment is now the general rule, joint and several liability has not vanished entirely from Georgia law. There can be circumstances in which more than one party bears responsibility for the same harm in a way that resembles joint liability, such as certain relationships involving vicarious responsibility, where an employer may be answerable for the conduct of an employee acting within the scope of employment. The treatment of fault and liability in such situations can be more complex than a straightforward apportionment among independent defendants.
Where the structure of liability in a particular case differs from the standard apportionment model, the jury instructions are tailored to fit the actual legal framework that applies. The instructions describe the law the jury must apply given the specific claims and parties in the case.
A note on review and accuracy
Whether a given jury instruction is proper is judged by whether it correctly states the applicable law and whether it is adjusted to the evidence in the case. A party that believes an instruction is incorrect or incomplete can raise the issue with the trial court and, if necessary, on appeal. Appellate courts review jury instructions to ensure they accurately conveyed the governing law.
Summary
A Georgia jury is instructed on the legal framework it must apply, and in most modern injury cases that framework is apportionment under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33 rather than traditional joint and several liability. Georgia abolished joint and several liability in most circumstances in 2005 and replaced it with a system in which the jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible person and each defendant is generally liable only for its own share. The jury is instructed on how to allocate fault and find damages, often using a verdict form that captures the percentages. Georgia trial practice generally separates instructing the jury on the law it must apply from informing the jury about downstream financial consequences, and the content of the jury charge is controlled by the trial court and tailored to the actual legal structure of the case.
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.