The Georgia statute of limitations for personal injury is two years and for property damage to a vehicle is four years, and those deadlines run continuously regardless of any roadside cash transaction. A driver who accepted cash at the scene and is now within or approaching one of those deadlines faces the same evidentiary requirements as any other civil claimant. The cash transaction does not satisfy the burden of proof and does not, by itself, extinguish or preserve a claim. This guide describes how Georgia law structures the question.
The limitations framework
O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 establishes a two-year statute of limitations for actions for injuries to the person, measured from the date the right of action accrues. Loss of consortium claims carry a four-year period under the same statute. Reputation injuries carry one year. Property damage to a vehicle carries four years under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-32.
Tolling provisions exist but are narrow. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 tolls the limitation for minors and persons under legal disability. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-94 tolls the limitation when the defendant departs Georgia. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 tolls the limitation for civil claims against a person committing an offense from which the cause of action arises during the pendency of related criminal prosecution, up to a maximum of six years. None of these tolling provisions activates because cash was paid at the scene.
A claim filed after the statutory period expires is subject to dismissal. The deadline applies to filing the complaint, not to settling the matter informally. A roadside cash payment, no matter how recent, does not preserve the claim against the limitations period.
Evidence remains essential within the limitations window
The plaintiff in any Georgia negligence action bears the burden of proof on duty, breach, causation, and damages by a preponderance of the evidence under O.C.G.A. § 24-14-1. The defendant who asserts release, accord and satisfaction, or comparative fault bears the burden of proof on those affirmative defenses. The cash transaction is evidence relevant to release and accord defenses but does not, on its own, prove either.
The earlier within the limitations window evidence is preserved, the more reliable it tends to be. Surveillance footage, EDR (event data recorder) data, witness recollection, and treating physician documentation all degrade or disappear over time. The two-year clock under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 sets the outer boundary, but practical evidence preservation often operates on much shorter timelines.
The cash transaction as contract or accord
Under O.C.G.A. § 13-3-1, a contract requires parties able to contract, sufficient consideration, mutual assent, and a defined subject matter. A cash transfer at the scene typically supplies consideration but often falls short on assent and subject matter when no writing identifies the claims discharged.
Accord and satisfaction under O.C.G.A. § 13-4-103 requires the agreement to accept less than the full claim amount to be actually executed by payment, additional security, substitution of debtor, or other new consideration. The statute also imposes specific requirements for checks marked “payment in full.” A roadside cash payment in the absence of a written release rarely satisfies these standards as a matter of Georgia contract law.
Categories of evidence within the limitations window
Police records and SR-13
O.C.G.A. § 40-6-273 requires drivers involved in an accident causing injury or property damage of $500 or more to immediately notify local police within a municipality, or the county sheriff or state patrol outside one. The resulting Georgia Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Report contains officer observations admissible under the public records hearsay exception in O.C.G.A. § 24-8-803(8). When no officer responded, the SR-13 Personal Accident Report submitted to the Georgia Department of Driver Services records the parties’ contemporaneous account.
Scene and damage documentation
Photographs of vehicle damage, debris patterns, road conditions, and traffic control devices establish circumstantial proof of impact dynamics. Vehicle damage patterns often allow accident reconstructionists to opine on speed differential, angle of impact, and right-of-way. Such expert testimony must meet O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702, Georgia’s expert admissibility standard.
Medical records
Causation and damages rest principally on medical documentation. The treating physician’s notes establishing mechanism of injury, objective findings, diagnostic imaging, and treatment course connect the collision to the claimed harm. Georgia’s avoidable consequences doctrine, codified at O.C.G.A. § 51-12-11, requires mitigation of damages with ordinary care. The burden of proving failure to mitigate falls on the party asserting the defense.
Documentation of the cash transaction
ATM withdrawal records, mobile payment app receipts, photographs of the cash being exchanged, text messages confirming the amount, and witness statements about the transaction all bear on what the cash represented. The earlier these records are gathered, the more likely they remain accessible.
Surveillance and EDR data
Gas station cameras, business surveillance, intersection cameras, and dashcams may capture the collision and post-collision interaction. Retention is often short, sometimes 7 to 30 days. Event data recorders in modern vehicles capture pre-crash speed, throttle, brake application, and seatbelt status. EDR data can be lost if the vehicle is repaired, scrapped, or sold. Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015), addresses the duty to preserve evidence when litigation is reasonably foreseeable.
Comparative negligence and the cash question
Georgia applies modified comparative negligence under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. A plaintiff who is 50 percent or more at fault recovers nothing, and recovery is reduced proportionally otherwise. When a plaintiff accepted cash at the scene, the defense may argue the cash reflected the plaintiff’s acknowledgment of fault. The plaintiff may argue the cash reflected the payer’s acknowledgment of fault. The fact finder, whether claims adjuster, magistrate, or jury, weighs the cash transaction alongside all other evidence.
Admissibility of the cash exchange
O.C.G.A. § 24-4-408 excludes evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations of a disputed claim when offered to prove or disprove the claim. The rule applies once a claim is in dispute. A roadside exchange before any claim has crystallized may fall outside § 24-4-408 and remain admissible as a party admission under § 24-8-801(d)(2).
O.C.G.A. § 24-4-409 makes payment of medical and similar expenses inadmissible to prove liability. The narrow scope of § 24-4-409 means cash for medical bills is treated differently from cash for vehicle damage or general restitution.
Filing deadlines and procedural requirements
A claim filed under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 must be filed and served within the statutory period or within a reasonable time thereafter, as Georgia case law interprets the diligence requirement following filing. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4 governs process and service. Failure to perfect service has caused dismissals even when complaints were timely filed.
For claims at or below $15,000, the Magistrate Court has concurrent civil jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 15-10-2. For claims above $15,000, State Court or Superior Court has jurisdiction. The procedural requirements differ across these forums but the limitations period under § 9-3-33 is uniform.
The interaction of cash and the running clock
Several scenarios commonly arise as the limitations deadline approaches. In one, the plaintiff’s symptoms or damages have grown beyond what the cash addressed, and the plaintiff prepares to file suit to recover the difference. The plaintiff must then anticipate the defense argument that the cash discharged the claim, and must rebut that argument under O.C.G.A. § 13-3-1 and § 13-4-103. In another, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim that has not resolved and the limitations clock is approaching. Insurance negotiations do not toll § 9-3-33. The plaintiff must file suit before the deadline regardless of claim status.
In a third, the parties orally agreed at the scene that the cash settled the matter, and one party later attempts to revisit the agreement. The party seeking to enforce the oral settlement bears the burden of proving its terms and execution.
Summary
Evidence is required in any Georgia civil action arising from a collision, regardless of any cash transaction and regardless of how close the limitations deadline is. The two-year period under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 runs from the date the right of action accrues and is not tolled by a cash payment. A roadside cash transfer rarely satisfies the contract formation requirements of O.C.G.A. § 13-3-1 or the accord and satisfaction rules of § 13-4-103. Documentation across categories, including police records under § 40-6-273, medical records, scene photographs, surveillance, EDR data, and records of the cash transaction itself, defines the strength of any position taken within the limitations window.
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.