A non-driving occupant in a Georgia vehicle crash sits in a different legal position than the driver. The traffic statutes that allocate operational responsibility, including the speed laws of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-181 and the basic rule under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-180, address the driver’s conduct. The seat belt statute, by contrast, applies to all occupants of the vehicle. After Senate Bill 68 was signed into law in April 2025, the question of whether belt non-use can be used against a passenger has shifted significantly.
The Statutory Belt Requirement
O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 requires each occupant of a passenger vehicle equipped with safety belts to wear one. The statute originally included a civil-evidence shield, often called the gag rule, which kept belt non-use out of liability and damages calculations. The Georgia Supreme Court applied that bar consistently for decades, treating belt non-use as inadmissible in tort cases regardless of where the unbuckled person was sitting in the vehicle.
The 2025 Repeal of the Gag Rule
Senate Bill 68, signed by Governor Brian Kemp on April 21, 2025, repealed the gag-rule provision of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 and made belt non-use available for use in civil cases. The amended statute now permits the trier of fact to consider belt non-use when assessing negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, and apportionment of fault. The change applies to occupants as a class, which means a passenger who was not belted can now be confronted with that evidence in the same way as a driver who was not belted. The amended statute leaves in place the bar on using non-use as a ground to cancel insurance or raise premiums.
Driver Versus Passenger Liability Roles
The driver carries the primary set of operational duties. Passengers are not generally liable to other vehicles or their occupants for the way the vehicle is driven, unless special facts apply, such as a passenger who interfered with the controls or who knowingly entered a vehicle operated by an obviously impaired driver. The conventional defenses against a passenger’s recovery focus on assumption of risk and on the apportionment scheme of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33.
After SB 68, a passenger’s belt status fits into that apportionment scheme. A defense lawyer for the at-fault driver of another vehicle, or for the host driver if the passenger sues the host, may argue that some portion of the injury was caused by the absence of restraint rather than by the collision forces alone. The argument is not that the passenger caused the wreck. The argument is that the passenger’s injuries would have been less severe with a belt.
The Comparative Fault Framework
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 directs Georgia juries to assess the percentage of fault attributable to each party and certain non-parties, to reduce damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s share, and to bar recovery entirely when the plaintiff is 50 percent or more responsible. The statute makes the apportionment process the formal mechanism for handling shared responsibility.
For a passenger plaintiff, the percentage attributed to belt non-use after SB 68 depends on the specific injuries and on the strength of the causation evidence. A passenger thrown from a vehicle in a high-speed crash where belts would clearly have prevented ejection may face a substantial apportionment argument. A passenger whose injuries are unrelated to belt restraint, such as a hand injury caused by an intruding object, may face a much weaker argument that the trial court could limit or exclude under the evidence rules.
What Being Blamed Means in Practice
“Being blamed” in Georgia practice can take several forms. It might mean named as a defendant in another party’s suit. It might mean accused of apportionable fault as a non-party under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(d). It might mean having one’s own claim reduced because a defense identifies the plaintiff as partially responsible. For a non-driving occupant, being blamed for non-use of a belt typically falls in the third category, where the defense uses belt status to chip away at the damages calculation rather than to assert affirmative liability for the crash itself.
Special Rules for Child Occupants
Different rules apply to child occupants. O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76 sets requirements for child passenger safety seats, including the requirement that a child under eight be properly secured in an approved child restraint or booster, with that restraint placed in the rear seat when possible, in accordance with manufacturer instructions and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213. Child restraint compliance is a separate inquiry from adult belt use and is governed by its own statute.
Evidence Likely to Be Used
After the SB 68 amendments, defense investigation in crashes involving unbuckled occupants commonly examines the airbag control module data, paramedic narrative entries, photographs of belt webbing and buckles, vehicle deformation patterns, and biomechanical analysis. Plaintiffs counter with their own biomechanical evidence and with arguments under Georgia evidence law about the prejudicial effect of belt evidence in cases where causation between non-use and the specific injuries is weak. Trial courts retain discretion to limit the evidence under that framework.
Insurance Coverages That May Apply
A non-driving occupant in Georgia may have access to multiple coverages. The host vehicle’s liability policy may apply if the host driver was at fault. The other vehicle’s liability coverage may apply if the other driver was at fault. The passenger’s own auto policy may extend uninsured and underinsured motorist protection under O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11, even when riding in someone else’s car. Medical payments coverage on either policy may help with crash-related medical expenses regardless of fault. SB 68 did not change any of these coverage rules. The amendment focused on what may be argued and weighed in court, not on what insurance can be collected.
Filing Deadlines
The personal injury limitations period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 generally provides two years from the date of injury to file suit. Claims against the state of Georgia, against counties, or against municipalities carry separate ante litem notice provisions in O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 and § 36-33-5. Minors and persons under legal disability are tolled under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90. These rules apply equally to driver and passenger plaintiffs.
The Short Answer
A non-driving occupant in Georgia may now face arguments about belt non-use under O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 as amended by SB 68. Those arguments flow through the apportionment framework of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, do not normally assign affirmative responsibility for the crash, and remain subject to the trial court’s evidence-rule gatekeeping. The fact that the occupant was not driving does not insulate them from this evidentiary shift, but it does mean that fault for causing the crash, as opposed to fault for failing to mitigate the resulting injuries, still rests with whichever driver’s conduct created the collision.
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.