Two distinct safety statutes shape this scenario in Georgia: the seat belt requirement under O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 and the Hands-Free Georgia Act under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241. Both interact with the state’s modified comparative negligence rule, and both must be considered against the personal-injury limitations period in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33. The combination of phone use and belt non-use can create a layered fault picture that defense lawyers now have far more ability to put before a Georgia jury than they did before April 2025.
The Seat Belt Statute Before and After SB 68
The original version of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 required occupants of passenger vehicles to wear available safety belts, but it also contained the so-called gag rule. That gag rule barred the use of belt non-use as evidence of negligence, causation, liability, or diminished damages in civil proceedings. For decades, plaintiffs in Georgia could pursue motor vehicle claims without facing arguments that an unbuckled posture contributed to their injuries.
Senate Bill 68, signed by Governor Brian Kemp on April 21, 2025, repealed the gag rule. After SB 68, the failure to wear a seat belt is admissible to support arguments about negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, and apportionment of fault. The amended statute keeps in place the bar on using belt non-use to cancel insurance or raise premiums and leaves the trial court with the standard discretion under the Georgia evidence rules to exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
The Hands-Free Statute
Georgia’s Hands-Free Act, codified at O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241, took effect in July 2018. The statute generally prohibits a driver from physically holding or supporting a wireless telecommunications device while operating a motor vehicle. It bars writing, sending, or reading text-based messages and prohibits watching, recording, or broadcasting video on a wireless device while driving. Hands-free use through Bluetooth, earpieces, or speakerphone is allowed, and drivers may use a single button to activate or end a call. First-offense fines are capped at fifty dollars, with escalations for repeat offenses. The statute also assigns license points and identifies the conduct as a primary traffic offense.
The hands-free rule is separate from the duty of due care articulated in O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241(a), which requires every driver to exercise due care and avoid actions that distract the driver from the safe operation of the vehicle. A violation of either provision can be cited as evidence of negligence per se in a civil action where the breach of the safety statute is causally connected to the resulting harm.
How Phone Use Affects Allocation of Fault
Texting or otherwise handling a phone in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241 is a classic ground for a comparative-fault argument under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. The statute requires the trier of fact to apportion damages among the parties at fault. If the injured person was driving and using a phone in a manner that breached the hands-free law, the defense will argue that share of fault belongs to the injured driver. If a passenger was using a phone but not driving, that conduct does not violate the hands-free law and rarely shifts liability.
Phone use that does not violate the statute can still come in under general due-care principles or under the rules of evidence as relevant to causation, depending on the facts.
The Combined Effect After SB 68
Where the title question becomes interesting is the combination. After April 21, 2025, a Georgia jury may hear about both the phone conduct and the belt status. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, the jury will assign a percentage of fault to the plaintiff if the evidence supports it. The 50 percent bar applies: if the injured person is 50 percent or more responsible for the harm, recovery is denied. If the plaintiff is less than 50 percent at fault, the award is reduced by that percentage.
A defense team might argue, for example, that phone use caused or contributed to the crash and that the absence of a belt aggravated the resulting injuries. Plaintiffs typically respond with biomechanical and medical evidence about whether belt use would have changed the outcome and with eyewitness or telemetry evidence about the actual mechanism of the crash.
The Two-Year Limitations Period
The personal injury limitations period in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 generally requires actions for injuries to the person to be brought within two years of the day the right of action accrues. In typical motor vehicle injury cases, that clock starts the day of the crash. Property damage claims have their own four-year clock under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31. The discovery rule and tolling for legal incapacity, including minors under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90, can adjust the running period in specific situations. Claims against state or local government entities have shorter ante litem notice requirements under O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 and § 36-33-5.
Filing inside the limitations window is what makes the comparative-fault and belt-admissibility issues actually justiciable. A complaint filed outside the period typically fails on a motion to dismiss regardless of the strength of the underlying facts.
Insurance and Coverage Realities
The injured driver’s first-party coverages and the at-fault driver’s liability coverage continue to operate normally under Georgia law. Minimum financial responsibility limits are set at 25/50/25 by O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11, and policyholders are entitled to be offered uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with the same minimums unless they reject it in writing. SB 68 left in place the bar against canceling coverage or raising rates because of belt non-use.
Practical Evidence Patterns
In a post-SB 68 case where phone handling is in the mix, the record often includes cellular metadata, app usage logs, infotainment records, vehicle event-data recorder downloads, and photographs of the vehicle interior. Belt-status evidence often comes from EMS notes, witness statements, photographs of buckle and webbing wear, and airbag control module data. Trial courts evaluate admissibility on a case-by-case basis under the evidence rules. The 2025 Mercer Law Review survey of recent Georgia decisions discusses how Georgia courts have begun managing this evidence under the amended framework.
Bottom Line
Under Georgia law as currently codified, belt non-use is no longer categorically excluded from civil cases. A driver who was using a phone in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241 faces independent comparative-fault exposure for that conduct, and the unbuckled posture may add a further layer of allocation under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. The whole inquiry is only possible if the case is filed within the two-year window of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33.
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.