Impairment behind the wheel of a commercial truck is not limited to alcohol or illegal drugs. A driver can be impaired by a legally prescribed medication. Georgia law treats this situation seriously, both in the criminal context and in civil claims for injury. This guide explains how Georgia courts approach liability when a truck driver is alleged to have caused a crash while impaired by prescription medication.
Prescription medication and impaired driving under Georgia law
Georgia’s driving under the influence statute, O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-391, does not require that an impairing substance be illegal. The statute prohibits driving under the influence of any drug to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive. It also addresses driving while under the influence of a combination of substances and, separately, addresses controlled substances present in the body.
The key point for prescription medication is that having a valid prescription is not, by itself, a defense to impaired driving. A driver who takes a medication exactly as prescribed can still be in violation of the law if the medication renders the driver less safe to operate the vehicle. Many prescription drugs, including certain pain medications, muscle relaxants, sedatives, antihistamines, and anti-anxiety medications, can cause drowsiness, slowed reaction time, or reduced alertness. When such effects make a driver less safe, Georgia law treats the conduct as impaired driving even though the drug was lawfully obtained.
For commercial drivers, additional standards apply. Federal motor carrier safety regulations restrict the use of substances that could impair a commercial driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely and address the use of medications. These federal rules supplement Georgia law and are often relevant in trucking cases.
Negligence and the duty of care
In a civil case, the central question is whether the driver acted negligently. Every driver in Georgia has a duty to exercise ordinary care, which includes a duty not to operate a vehicle while impaired to a degree that makes driving unsafe. A driver who knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that a medication impairs the ability to drive safely, and who drives anyway, may be found negligent.
A driver may also be negligent for failing to heed warnings. Prescription medications and pharmacy labels frequently carry warnings about drowsiness or about operating machinery. A factfinder may consider whether a reasonable person, aware of those warnings and of how the medication actually affected them, would have driven a commercial truck.
Negligence per se
Georgia courts also recognize the doctrine of negligence per se. Under this doctrine, the violation of a safety statute can establish the negligence element of a civil claim, when the injured person is within the class the statute was designed to protect and the harm is of the type the statute was designed to prevent. Driving under the influence in violation of O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-391 is commonly treated as conduct that can support negligence per se, because the statute is a public safety law.
If a driver is shown to have violated the impaired-driving statute, that violation can establish negligence without the plaintiff having to separately prove that the conduct fell below the standard of care. The plaintiff must still prove causation, meaning that the violation was a proximate cause of the crash, and must prove damages. A criminal conviction is not always required for negligence per se to be argued in a civil case, but the precise treatment depends on the facts and the evidence.
Liability of the trucking company
When the impaired driver was operating a commercial truck, the motor carrier’s responsibility is also examined. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee committed within the scope of employment. If the driver was acting within the scope of employment, the carrier may be liable for the driver’s negligent operation of the truck.
A carrier may also face direct claims based on its own conduct. These can include negligent hiring or retention, negligent supervision, or negligent entrustment, particularly if the carrier knew or should have known that a driver was using a medication that impaired safe driving and allowed the driver to operate the truck anyway. Federal regulations require carriers to ensure that drivers are physically qualified, and questions can arise about medical certification and about a carrier’s policies on reporting medication use. The strength of any direct claim against the carrier depends on what the carrier knew and on the facts.
Punitive damages and impairment
Georgia’s punitive damages statute, O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1, allows punitive damages only when the evidence, by a clear and convincing standard, shows willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care raising the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. The statute generally limits punitive damages to a fixed amount in tort cases, but it contains an exception. The cap does not apply when the defendant acted while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or another substance that impaired the defendant’s judgment.
Georgia courts have applied this impairment exception in cases involving impairment by drugs as well as alcohol. Whether the exception applies to a particular case involving prescription medication is a fact-specific question that depends on the evidence about the driver’s condition and conduct.
Evidence and proof
Liability in these cases is established through evidence. This can include toxicology results, medical and pharmacy records, the prescribing physician’s instructions and warnings, the driver’s own statements, witness observations, police investigation, and evidence from the truck itself such as event data recorder information. Expert testimony is often used to explain how a particular medication affects driving ability and whether the levels found were consistent with impairment.
Summary
Georgia courts determine liability in prescription-medication cases by asking whether the truck driver was impaired to a degree that made driving unsafe, whether that impairment caused the crash, and whether the trucking company bears responsibility through vicarious or direct liability. A valid prescription does not excuse impaired driving. Violation of O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-391 may support negligence per se, and the impairment exception to the punitive damages cap can apply where the evidence supports it. Each case ultimately turns on its specific facts and the evidence presented.
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.