Truck accident lawsuits often involve more than one defendant. A single crash can give rise to claims against the truck driver, the motor carrier that employed the driver, the company that owned the trailer, a maintenance contractor, a parts manufacturer, a shipper or broker, and sometimes other motorists. How Georgia divides financial responsibility among multiple defendants is governed largely by its apportionment statute, and the rules differ significantly from the older concept of joint and several liability.
What joint and several liability meant
Under traditional joint and several liability, when two or more defendants were responsible for an indivisible injury, a plaintiff could collect the entire amount of the judgment from any one of them, regardless of that defendant’s individual share of fault. A defendant who paid more than its share would then seek contribution from the others. The practical effect was that the risk of an insolvent or uninsured defendant fell on the other defendants rather than on the injured plaintiff.
Georgia largely abolished joint and several liability
Georgia changed this approach. As part of the Tort Reform Act of 2005, the General Assembly enacted O.C.G.A. 51-12-33, which replaced joint and several liability in most circumstances with a system of apportionment. Under apportionment, the jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible person, and each defendant is generally responsible only for the portion of the damages corresponding to its own percentage of fault.
The consequence in a multi-defendant truck accident case is that the trier of fact does not enter a single lump-sum judgment that any one defendant must satisfy in full. Instead, it allocates fault, and the judgment against each defendant is tied to that defendant’s allocated share. A defendant found 30 percent at fault is generally responsible for 30 percent of the damages, not the entire amount.
Apportionment among parties and nonparties
O.C.G.A. 51-12-33 directs the trier of fact to consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury, and this can include nonparties. If a defendant identifies a person who is not named in the lawsuit but who shares responsibility, the jury may be asked to assign a percentage of fault to that nonparty, subject to the statute’s notice requirements. Fault assigned to a nonparty reduces the percentages allocated to the defendants. A nonparty, however, does not pay a judgment, because no judgment is entered against a person who is not a party.
The statute also applies to the plaintiff’s own conduct. Georgia uses a modified comparative negligence rule. The plaintiff’s damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s own percentage of fault, and a plaintiff who is found 50 percent or more at fault recovers nothing.
Single-defendant and multi-defendant cases after the 2022 amendment
The reach of the apportionment statute was the subject of an important development. In Alston & Bird, LLP v. Hatcher Management Holdings, LLC, the Supreme Court of Georgia interpreted the statute’s language and held that nonparty apportionment under subsection (b) was limited to cases brought against more than one defendant, meaning it did not apply to single-defendant cases.
In response, the Georgia General Assembly amended O.C.G.A. 51-12-33 in 2022, effective May 13, 2022, changing the opening language so that apportionment applies whether an action is brought against “one or more persons.” The amendment restored the availability of nonparty apportionment in single-defendant cases going forward. Cases that arose before the effective date of the amendment may still be governed by the interpretation in the Hatcher decision. In a typical multi-defendant truck accident case, apportionment among the defendants applies under either version of the statute.
Important exceptions where joint liability can still apply
The shift to apportionment is broad but not total. O.C.G.A. 51-12-33 itself provides that its rules apply where the plaintiff is not entirely without fault, and Georgia law preserves joint liability in certain situations. Notably, defendants who acted in concert, meaning pursuant to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act, can still be held jointly liable. Apportionment among such concerted actors is treated differently from apportionment among independent tortfeasors.
In addition, apportionment divides fault among separate responsible persons. It does not undo doctrines that make one party legally answerable for another’s conduct. A motor carrier can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver under the doctrine of respondeat superior when the driver was acting within the scope of employment. In that situation, the driver and the carrier are not two independent fault-bearers being separated by apportionment; the carrier’s liability is derivative of the driver’s conduct. The fault assigned to the driver’s negligent operation can flow through to the employing carrier through vicarious liability principles.
Why this matters in trucking cases
Trucking litigation frequently involves a mix of defendants with very different levels of insurance and financial strength. Because Georgia generally apportions damages by percentage of fault rather than allowing full collection from any one defendant, the allocation of fault becomes a central battleground. Each defendant has an incentive to shift fault toward the others, toward nonparties, and toward the plaintiff. The presence of a vicariously liable employer, the identification of nonparties at fault, and the question of whether any defendants acted in concert all shape how responsibility is ultimately divided.
Summary
Georgia has largely replaced joint and several liability with apportionment under O.C.G.A. 51-12-33. In a multi-defendant truck accident case, the jury assigns each responsible person a percentage of fault, and each defendant is generally liable only for its own share rather than the entire judgment. Fault may be assigned to nonparties and to the plaintiff, and a plaintiff who is 50 percent or more at fault recovers nothing. A 2022 amendment confirmed that apportionment applies in single-defendant as well as multi-defendant cases going forward. Joint liability still exists for defendants who acted in concert, and vicarious liability continues to make employers answerable for the conduct of their drivers.
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.