This guide explains how Georgia law currently treats two separate driver conduct issues in a civil car accident case: the failure to wear a seat belt, and the use of a mobile phone while driving. The focus is on the legal framework and the role of documentation when the case involves both questions.
The Seat Belt Statute and the 2025 Change
Adult seat belt use in Georgia is governed by O.C.G.A. Section 40-8-76.1. The statute requires drivers and front seat passengers of covered passenger vehicles to wear a seat safety belt and treats a violation as a fine-only traffic offense.
For decades, the same statute also contained a gag rule that prevented seat belt non-use from being introduced into evidence in a civil action for any liability or damages purpose. In April 2025, the Georgia General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 68, which Governor Brian Kemp signed on April 21, 2025. SB 68 repealed the seat belt gag rule and substituted language allowing civil litigants to introduce evidence of seat belt non-use on issues such as negligence, comparative negligence, apportionment of fault, assumption of risk, and injury causation. The seat belt provision applies to civil actions commenced on or after that date.
Trial courts retain authority under Georgia’s evidence rules, particularly O.C.G.A. Section 24-4-403, to exclude relevant evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion. That balancing applies to seat belt evidence the same way it applies to any other category of admitted evidence.
Georgia’s Hands-Free Statute
Mobile phone use behind the wheel in Georgia is governed by O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-241, the Hands-Free Georgia Act, which took effect on July 1, 2018. The statute generally prohibits a driver from holding or supporting a wireless telecommunications device with any part of the body, writing or reading text-based communications, watching videos, or recording videos while operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Hands-free use through built-in interfaces, single-touch activation, and earpieces is generally permitted, with several specific exceptions for emergency situations and for fully parked vehicles.
A first offense is a fine-only misdemeanor under the statute. The statute also contemplates points on the driver’s license depending on the conduct involved.
How Both Issues Interact With Civil Fault
In a civil car accident case, fault is allocated under Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, in combination with the modified comparative negligence rule. The factfinder determines total damages, assigns percentages of fault, reduces damages by the plaintiff’s percentage, and bars recovery entirely if the plaintiff is 50 percent or more at fault.
Phone use and seat belt non-use are different in legal character. Phone use that violates the Hands-Free Act bears on whether a driver breached the duty of care owed to others on the road. It is conduct that tends to relate to causation of the collision itself. Seat belt non-use generally relates to the severity of the occupant’s own injuries given a collision that has already occurred, rather than to causation of the collision.
A defendant in a civil case may use evidence of plaintiff phone use, if admissible under the rules of evidence, to argue that the plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to causing the crash. Under the post-SB 68 framework, the same defendant may also use evidence of seat belt non-use to argue that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been less severe with proper belt use. The factfinder considers both kinds of evidence within the same apportionment analysis.
The Documentation Question
A common factual pattern involves a crash where no one specifically recorded what each driver was doing at the moment of impact. The police report may not mention phone use. No witness may have observed the driver looking at a device. The car may have no relevant data recorder, or the recorder may not store the kind of information needed.
Several sources of phone use evidence are commonly available in Georgia civil litigation. Cell carrier records can show the timing of calls, texts, and data sessions. Device forensic analysis can show app activity, messages, and screen-on events. Vehicle infotainment system logs sometimes record paired phone activity. Witnesses, including passengers and drivers of other vehicles, can testify to what they observed.
For seat belt use, common sources include witness observation at the scene, photographs of the occupant, emergency medical responder documentation of injury patterns and any belt-related abrasions, vehicle event data recorder downloads indicating belt status, and accident reconstruction expert testimony.
If no such evidence exists, the party trying to establish either fact has to do so under Georgia’s general burden of proof rules. The proponent has to produce admissible evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find the fact. Speculative testimony is generally not allowed. The absence of contemporaneous documentation tends to make either issue harder to prove.
Foundation Requirements After SB 68
Under the post-SB 68 version of O.C.G.A. Section 40-8-76.1, the party offering seat belt evidence still must lay a foundation. Recognized foundation sources include witness observation, vehicle data recorder output, expert opinion based on physical evidence such as injury patterns and belt position, and similar testimony. A defendant who cannot lay any foundation may not be able to put the question to the factfinder at all.
For phone use, the foundation is provided primarily through carrier records and device data, accompanied by appropriate authentication under O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-901 and the Georgia rules of evidence. Even when records exist, the factfinder still has to decide whether the records actually reflect distracted driving and whether any phone activity at the relevant moment was hands-free conduct permitted by the Hands-Free Act.
Why “Without Documentation” Does Not End the Analysis
Civil fault allocation in Georgia does not require any particular form of documentation. The factfinder weighs all admissible evidence under the preponderance of the evidence standard. Indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence are routinely used.
For phone use, a defendant could conceivably build a circumstantial case from carrier records combined with crash timing data, even without an eyewitness. The plaintiff in such a case could counter with evidence that the phone activity occurred before the crash, that it was hands-free, that another person used the phone at that time, or that the conduct did not cause the collision. The factfinder weighs the competing inferences.
For seat belt non-use, a defendant might rely on injury patterns combined with vehicle damage and expert reconstruction. The plaintiff can counter with witness testimony, response photos, and contrary expert opinion. Again the factfinder decides.
Effect on Recovery
Under Georgia’s modified comparative negligence framework, neither phone use nor seat belt non-use is automatically a complete bar to recovery in a civil claim. A plaintiff who is found partly at fault for either reason simply has the recovery reduced by the assigned percentage, up to the 50 percent threshold above which the plaintiff is barred entirely.
Phone use evidence, where it shows that the plaintiff’s own driving caused or contributed to the collision, can support a sizeable percentage allocation against the plaintiff. Seat belt non-use, by contrast, typically supports a more limited allocation tied to the share of injuries that would have been prevented by a belt.
Summary
Georgia’s 2025 statutory change opened the door to civil evidence of seat belt non-use in actions filed on or after April 21, 2025, while preserving foundation and prejudice safeguards. Phone use evidence has been available throughout the lifespan of the Hands-Free Georgia Act and is admissible subject to the ordinary rules of evidence. Lack of contemporaneous documentation makes either issue harder to prove, but does not preclude it where carrier records, expert testimony, witness observation, or vehicle data exist. Apportionment under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33 governs how any such evidence translates into reduced or barred recovery.
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.