Georgia enacted significant civil litigation reform in 2025. Senate Bill 68, signed by Governor Brian Kemp on April 21, 2025, made several changes that directly affect how truck accident cases are tried and how large verdicts are calculated. SB 69, signed the same day, addresses third-party litigation funding and is sometimes discussed alongside SB 68. The combined package is the most significant overhaul of Georgia tort practice in a generation, and its provisions touch nearly every truck crash that goes to trial after the effective date.
This guide describes the structural changes that influence verdict size in commercial truck litigation.
Background: Why Truck Cases Produce Large Verdicts
Commercial truck cases tend to produce larger verdicts than ordinary car cases for a few reasons that exist independently of any tort reform statute. Tractor-trailers weigh many times more than passenger vehicles, so injuries and fatalities tend to be more severe. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations create concrete standards of conduct that, when violated, can support negligence per se findings. Federal financial responsibility rules under 49 C.F.R. Part 387 require minimum liability coverage of $750,000 for most general freight, with higher minimums for hazardous materials, and many carriers carry layered policies far above that floor. Together, the severity of the harm, the regulatory framework, and the available coverage shape the size of the eventual award.
SB 68 does not change those underlying realities. It changes the procedural and evidentiary rules that surround the verdict.
Anchoring and Non-Economic Damages
A key SB 68 change for verdict size concerns how plaintiffs may argue non-economic damages, including pain and suffering. Under the new framework, attorneys cannot suggest specific dollar amounts for non-economic damages at certain points in trial in the way previously allowed, and any amount discussed during closing argument must be rationally tied to the evidence presented at trial.
The “anchoring” critique that drove this change was that plaintiff counsel could plant a very large number in jurors’ minds early on, influencing where the jury landed even if the number had no specific connection to identifiable losses. By tightening when and how dollar figures for intangible harm can be argued, the legislature sought to reduce so-called nuclear verdicts. In truck cases, where non-economic damages can be a major component of the total, this change has direct verdict-size implications.
Phantom Damages and Medical Bills
SB 68 also altered how medical expenses are presented to the jury. Under the new rules, the recoverable amount for past medical expenses focuses on amounts actually paid, or amounts that are reasonably required to be paid for the care provided, rather than the often higher amounts initially billed before adjustments. Defendants are permitted to introduce evidence of what was actually paid or required to be paid to contrast with the billed amounts.
For truck accident plaintiffs with substantial hospital, surgical, and rehabilitation bills, this change can shift the economic damages component of a verdict downward compared with the pre-reform “billed amount” approach. The medical expenses provisions apply to causes of action arising on or after the law’s effective date.
Trial Bifurcation
SB 68 expanded the right to bifurcation of bodily injury and wrongful death trials. Either side can request that the trial be split into a liability phase and a damages phase, subject to statutory thresholds and exclusions, with the law providing that bifurcation is not available when the amount in controversy is under $150,000. Most commercial truck cases will easily exceed that threshold.
Bifurcation matters to verdict size because it changes the order of jury exposure to information. In a unified trial, jurors hear about the severity of injuries while also evaluating fault. In a bifurcated trial, the jury decides liability first, with the damages picture presented separately if liability is found. Defense lawyers generally favor bifurcation, arguing it produces calmer damages assessments; plaintiff lawyers generally argue the opposite. The practical effect varies by case.
Seat Belt Evidence
Before SB 68, Georgia had a longstanding rule that the non-use of a seat belt was not admissible to reduce a plaintiff’s recovery in most cases. SB 68 changed that. Evidence of whether the plaintiff was wearing a seat belt is now admissible on issues such as negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, and apportionment of fault, in a manner the statute prescribes.
In a truck crash where a passenger vehicle is struck and occupants were unbelted, this change can be relevant to the jury’s allocation of fault under Georgia’s modified comparative negligence rule found in O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. Under that statute, a plaintiff who is 50 percent or more at fault cannot recover; below that threshold, recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault.
Negligent Security and Premises Cases
SB 68 also tightened standards for negligent security and certain premises liability claims. While this aspect is most directly relevant to property owner cases rather than over-the-road truck crashes, it can come into play when a truck terminal, loading dock, or third-party property is part of a case. The new rules limit certain types of premises claims based on third-party criminal conduct, with specific definitions and elements set out in the statute.
Effective Date and Pending Cases
Most procedural and damages-related provisions of SB 68 took effect upon enactment on April 21, 2025, and apply to both pending and newly filed cases, except where the statute specifies otherwise. The medical expense provisions apply to causes of action arising on or after the effective date. Counsel handling cases that straddle the effective date typically need to analyze which provisions apply to which claims.
Third-Party Litigation Funding
SB 69 addressed third-party litigation funding, requiring registration of funders and providing for disclosure and other guardrails. In trucking cases that have historically attracted litigation finance, these rules change the regulatory environment around funded claims without directly capping verdict size.
What SB 68 Did Not Do
SB 68 is not a damages cap statute. Georgia’s prior cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases was struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt, 286 Ga. 731 (2010), and SB 68 does not introduce a new statutory cap on non-economic damages in motor vehicle or trucking cases. Punitive damages remain governed by O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1, which contains its own caps and exceptions. Compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, and pain and suffering remain available subject to the new procedural and evidentiary rules.
Net Effect on Truck Verdicts
For commercial trucking litigation, SB 68’s most likely effects on verdict size are:
- Lower medical-expense components in cases governed by the new medical bills rules, compared with the prior “billed amount” approach.
- Tighter constraints on how large pain-and-suffering numbers can be argued, which may reduce the frequency of very high non-economic damage awards.
- Greater use of bifurcated trials, with effects on damages that depend on the case.
- More frequent admission of seat belt evidence, which can shift apportionment of fault under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33.
These changes do not eliminate large verdicts in serious commercial trucking cases. Catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases continue to produce significant awards when the evidence supports them. SB 68 reshapes the path to those verdicts rather than removing it. The statute itself, the related code amendments, and the case law interpreting the new provisions are publicly available and continue to develop.
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.