This guide explains how Georgia law treats three separate questions that sometimes appear together: the seat belt rule for occupants of a passenger vehicle, the legal effect of declining medical treatment at the scene of a crash, and the implications of an insurance carrier’s denial of a claim. The discussion covers general statutes and principles.
The seat belt statute
Georgia’s seat belt requirement is codified at O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1. The statute requires each front-seat occupant of a passenger vehicle, and any minor at least eight years of age in any seat, to be restrained by a seat safety belt. The defined term “passenger vehicle” extends to pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers or fewer. The maximum criminal fine for adult non-compliance is $15.
A separate subsection had long been called the “gag rule” because it prohibited evidence of seat belt non-use from being introduced in a civil action to prove negligence, causation, or any other liability question.
The 2025 amendment
On April 21, 2025, Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 68 into law. SB 68 amended O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 so that, in civil actions commenced on or after that date, the trier of fact may consider evidence of an occupant’s failure to wear an available seat safety belt. The evidence may be considered on negligence, comparative negligence, apportionment of fault, assumption of risk, causation of injuries, and other liability and damages questions.
The amendment is forward-looking. It applies to actions commenced on or after April 21, 2025. For actions filed earlier, the older form of the statute generally continues to apply. The trial judge retains discretion under the rules of evidence to exclude such evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Refusing treatment at the scene
A person involved in a crash is generally free to decline transport by ambulance or to defer evaluation for later. The right to refuse medical care is a basic doctrine of medical-consent law. Declining treatment at the scene is not, by itself, an admission that no injury occurred.
In a later civil case, however, the refusal may surface as evidence on two related questions: whether a particular injury was caused by the collision, and whether the injured person took ordinary steps to limit the consequences of any injury.
The doctrine of mitigation of damages is reflected in Georgia case law and in O.C.G.A. § 51-11-7, which provides that if a plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for the avoidable portion. The doctrine does not require heroic measures or financially impossible care. It generally requires ordinary care under the circumstances.
The gap between a collision and a first medical visit can also affect causation proof. Defense counsel may argue that an injury surfacing weeks after a crash is unrelated to the crash, while the injured party may explain a delay through symptom onset patterns, work obligations, or other circumstances. Whether causation is shown in a given case is a question of fact for the jury.
What an insurance denial does
An insurance carrier’s denial of a claim is a contractual determination, not a court ruling. It is based on the policy language and the carrier’s internal analysis, and it does not bind a court in a later civil action. The grounds for denial vary widely: a coverage exclusion, a late notice clause, a coverage limit dispute, a disputed cause of injury, an unresolved fault investigation, or a policy lapse.
A denial does not run the statute of limitations. The two-year personal injury period under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 runs from accrual of the cause of action regardless of whether a claim was made or denied. A denial also does not function as collateral estoppel in a later tort action against an at-fault driver, because the parties and the issues in the carrier’s decision are not the same as those in the tort action.
Georgia separately regulates the conduct of insurers. O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 establishes a procedure by which first-party policyholders may seek a statutory penalty for an insurer’s bad-faith refusal to pay. That procedure is distinct from a third-party tort claim against an at-fault driver.
Comparative fault under Georgia law
Modified comparative negligence is set out at O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. A plaintiff whose share of fault is less than 50 percent recovers damages reduced in proportion to that share. A plaintiff who is 50 percent or more at fault recovers nothing.
After SB 68, a defendant in a covered civil action may argue that seat belt non-use is one element bearing on apportionment of fault or on the causation of certain injuries. A defendant may also argue, separately, that a plaintiff’s refusal of available and reasonable medical treatment failed to mitigate damages and so reduces what would otherwise be recoverable. These are distinct arguments based on distinct legal doctrines.
The jury, under the trial court’s instructions, decides how much weight to give to any of these factors. The standard of proof remains a preponderance of the evidence.
The statute of limitations
The two-year limitations period under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 governs personal injury actions in Georgia, including those arising from motor vehicle collisions. Loss of consortium has a four-year period under the same statute. Property damage to personalty has a four-year period under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-32.
Tolling provisions can pause the running of the period. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 tolls the period during the time an injured person is a minor or legally incompetent. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-94 tolls the period during a defendant’s absence from the state. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 addresses tolling during a related criminal prosecution, subject to an outer cap of six years.
Neither a refusal of treatment nor an insurance denial creates a tolling event. The clock continues to run from accrual unless a recognized tolling rule applies or unless a written agreement to extend the period meets the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-110.
How the elements relate
A refusal of treatment at the scene, an insurance denial, and a seat belt question each occupy a different legal slot.
A refusal of treatment is most often a mitigation-of-damages and causation issue. It does not establish fault for the collision, but it can affect what damages are ultimately recoverable.
An insurance denial is a contractual matter that does not adjudicate tort liability. It does not affect the limitations period or the substantive law of negligence.
The seat belt question is governed by O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1, as amended by SB 68. Whether non-use evidence can be considered in a civil action depends on whether the action was commenced on or after April 21, 2025.
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.