After a jury returns a verdict in a truck accident case, one side may believe the verdict is flawed. Sometimes the dispute concerns only the amount of damages awarded, while liability appears settled. In that situation, a party may ask whether a Georgia trial court can order a new trial limited to the question of damages alone, leaving the finding of liability undisturbed. Georgia law permits partial new trials in some circumstances, but it places important limits on when a damages-only retrial is appropriate.
The Power to Grant a New Trial
A Georgia trial court has authority to grant a new trial when the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the principles of justice, when the verdict is contrary to law, or on other recognized grounds. The court that presided over the trial saw the witnesses and heard the testimony, and it is given considerable discretion in deciding whether a new trial is warranted. A new trial can be ordered on all issues, returning the entire case to a jury, or in some situations on fewer than all issues.
Partial New Trials Limited to Damages
A new trial confined to the issue of damages is recognized in Georgia practice, but it is not available in every case. The general principle is that a damages-only retrial is appropriate only where the issue of liability has been fairly and fully determined, and the error or problem with the verdict relates solely to the amount awarded. If liability was clearly established and not genuinely in dispute, and the only defect is an inadequate or excessive damages figure, a court may confine a retrial to damages.
The situation is different where liability itself was contested and the verdict reflects a compromise or is otherwise intertwined with the damages question. Georgia courts have recognized that when liability and damages are not cleanly separable, a new trial cannot be limited to damages alone and must encompass liability as well. This concern is especially significant in cases governed by comparative negligence.
The Effect of Comparative Negligence
Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence system. A jury can assign percentages of fault to the parties, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s own fault, and a plaintiff who is found to be 50 percent or more at fault recovers nothing. Because of this structure, the determination of fault and the determination of damages are connected. The amount a plaintiff ultimately recovers depends both on the total damages found and on the percentage of fault assigned.
Georgia courts have recognized, including in a decision involving a railroad and addressing comparative negligence principles, that in a comparative negligence case a trial court generally cannot limit a new trial to the issue of damages only. Where comparative fault is in play, a retrial that addresses damages must also address liability, because the two questions cannot be cleanly separated. A jury reconsidering damages would also need to consider the apportionment of fault that bears directly on the recoverable amount.
Inadequate or Excessive Verdicts
A separate but related provision, O.C.G.A. 51-12-12, addresses court interference with a jury’s verdict as to damages. It provides that the question of damages is ordinarily one for the jury, and that a court should not interfere with the jury’s verdict unless the damages awarded are clearly so inadequate or so excessive as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence. When a damages award meets that high standard, the trial court has discretion to order a new trial, and Georgia practice also recognizes the conditional tools of additur and remittitur, by which a court may condition the denial of a new trial on the parties’ acceptance of an increased or reduced award. These tools, too, are constrained by the principle that liability and damages must be separable before a damages-focused remedy is proper.
Appellate Review
A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial, and any decision to limit a new trial to damages, is reviewed on appeal under deferential standards. O.C.G.A. 5-5-50 addresses the standard an appellate court applies to a first grant of a new trial. With respect to claims that a verdict was inadequate or excessive under O.C.G.A. 51-12-12, appellate review is generally limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion, and the threshold for an appellate court to set aside a jury verdict that the trial court approved is high. The appellate court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court on the fact-bound question of whether an award fell within the range the evidence authorized.
Summary
A Georgia trial court can order a new trial limited solely to the issue of damages in a truck accident case, but only in limited circumstances. A damages-only retrial is appropriate when liability has been fairly and fully determined and is not genuinely intertwined with the damages question, so that the two issues are cleanly separable. Where liability was contested, or where the case is governed by comparative negligence so that fault and recoverable damages are connected, Georgia courts have recognized that a new trial cannot be confined to damages and must extend to liability as well. The standards of O.C.G.A. 51-12-12 govern when a damages verdict is so inadequate or excessive as to justify interference, and appellate courts review these decisions under deferential abuse-of-discretion standards.
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.