Accident reconstruction experts are common in serious Georgia collision cases, especially those involving commercial trucks. These experts analyze physical evidence, electronic data, and crash dynamics, and their work can be expensive. A natural question is whether the fees paid to such experts can be shifted to the losing side and included in the final judgment. The answer in Georgia is generally no for ordinary cases, with limited exceptions that depend on specific statutes or conduct.
The American Rule in Georgia
Georgia follows what is often called the American Rule. Under this rule, each party ordinarily bears its own litigation expenses, including attorney’s fees and the cost of retained experts. A prevailing party does not automatically recover what it spent on a reconstruction expert simply by winning. Recovery of those expenses requires a specific statutory or contractual basis. Without such a basis, expert fees remain a cost the hiring party absorbs.
Court costs versus litigation expenses
It helps to separate two different concepts. The first is court costs. Under O.C.G.A. 9-11-54(d), costs are generally allowed to the prevailing party unless the court directs otherwise. Georgia courts have long defined costs narrowly. Costs in this sense are the fixed statutory charges for services rendered by officers of the court, such as filing fees and clerk’s fees. They are collected to compensate court officers, not to reimburse a party for the full expense of building a case.
The second concept is litigation expenses, a broader category that includes attorney’s fees and the fees of retained experts such as accident reconstructionists. These expenses are not part of taxable court costs under O.C.G.A. 9-11-54(d). Because an accident reconstruction expert is a privately retained consultant rather than an officer of the court, that expert’s fee falls into the litigation-expense category and is not recovered as a routine cost item in the judgment.
When expert fees can be shifted
Georgia law recognizes several routes by which litigation expenses, potentially including reconstruction expert fees, can be recovered. Each requires more than simply prevailing.
One route is O.C.G.A. 13-6-11. This statute provides that expenses of litigation generally are not allowed as part of damages, but where the plaintiff has specially pleaded and prayed for them, a jury may award them if the defendant has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused the plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense. When a jury awards expenses under this statute, the award can be made part of the judgment. The bad faith generally must relate to the conduct underlying the claim, not merely the decision to defend the lawsuit.
A second route is the offer of settlement statute, O.C.G.A. 9-11-68. Under this statute, a party who makes a written offer of settlement that is rejected may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation incurred after the rejection if the eventual judgment is sufficiently unfavorable to the rejecting party. A defendant may recover when the final judgment is one of no liability or is less than 75 percent of the offer. A plaintiff may recover when the final judgment exceeds 125 percent of the offer. Offers must remain open for at least 30 days, and the court may decline an award if the offer was not made in good faith. The fees and expenses recoverable under this statute are limited to those incurred from the date of rejection through entry of judgment.
A third route is O.C.G.A. 9-15-14, which allows a court to assess litigation costs and attorney’s fees against a party who asserted a claim or defense that lacked substantial justification or who unnecessarily expanded the proceeding. This statute targets frivolous or abusive litigation conduct rather than ordinary losses.
A contract between the parties can also provide for fee and expense shifting. Where a valid contract entitles the prevailing party to recover litigation expenses, that provision is enforced according to its terms.
How an award is proved and included in the judgment
When a statute or contract supports recovery, the party seeking expenses must prove them. Georgia courts require evidence establishing that the claimed amounts are reasonable, which typically includes documentation of the work performed, the rates charged, and the connection between the expense and the litigation. A bare assertion of an expert’s total bill is generally not enough. If the court or jury approves the expenses under the applicable statute, the amount can be incorporated into the final judgment and becomes enforceable against the losing party.
It is important to recognize that not every expense survives this process. Even where O.C.G.A. 9-11-68 or 13-6-11 applies, a court may scrutinize whether a particular reconstruction expert’s charges were reasonable and whether they fall within the recoverable time period. Amounts found unreasonable or outside the statute can be reduced or denied.
Practical reality in truck accident litigation
In commercial truck cases, accident reconstruction is often essential because of the complexity of the collision and the volume of physical and electronic data. The cost of that work can be substantial. Despite this, a Georgia plaintiff or defendant who simply prevails at trial cannot count on having those fees reimbursed. The default outcome is that the hiring party bears the cost. Recovery becomes possible only when the case fits within a fee-shifting statute, such as a bad faith finding under O.C.G.A. 13-6-11, a favorable result after a rejected offer under O.C.G.A. 9-11-68, or a finding of abusive litigation under O.C.G.A. 9-15-14, or when a contract provides for it.
Summary
Under Georgia law, the fees of an accident reconstruction expert are litigation expenses, not taxable court costs, and they are not automatically recovered by a prevailing party. They can be included in a final judgment only when a specific statute or contract authorizes the shift, such as O.C.G.A. 13-6-11, O.C.G.A. 9-11-68, O.C.G.A. 9-15-14, or an enforceable fee provision. Even then, the expenses must be proven reasonable and may be subject to reduction by the court.
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.