When a truck collision causes injury, more than one party may bear legal responsibility. A trucking company may be liable for negligent operation, hiring, or maintenance, and a truck or component manufacturer may be liable if a defective product contributed to the crash. A natural question is how the financial responsibility is divided between two such defendants. In modern Georgia law, the answer usually does not involve traditional contribution at all. Instead, it involves apportionment of fault under a statute enacted as part of Georgia’s 2005 tort reform legislation.
Contribution Under the Old Rule
Contribution is a doctrine that allows one defendant who has paid more than its fair share of a judgment to recover the excess from another defendant who shares responsibility. Contribution is closely tied to the older doctrine of joint and several liability, under which each of multiple negligent defendants could be held responsible for the entire judgment, leaving any defendant who overpaid to seek contribution from the others. Georgia historically recognized a right of contribution among joint tortfeasors, reflected in statutes such as O.C.G.A. § 51-12-32.
The Shift to Apportionment
Georgia changed this framework significantly in 2005 with the enactment of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, the apportionment statute. Under that statute, when an action is brought against more than one person for injury to person or property, the trier of fact, meaning the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, determines the percentage of fault attributable to each person who contributed to the injury.
The key consequence appears in O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(b). When damages are apportioned among the persons who are liable, those apportioned damages are the several liability of each person against whom they are awarded. They are not a joint liability, and, as the statute expressly provides, they are not subject to any right of contribution. In other words, for cases governed by the apportionment statute, the modern rule generally replaces both joint and several liability and the traditional right of contribution with a system of several, fault-based responsibility.
How the Calculation Works
Where a truck manufacturer and a trucking company are both alleged to be at fault, the calculation under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 generally proceeds in several steps. First, the trier of fact determines the total amount of the plaintiff’s damages. Second, the trier of fact assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible person. That allocation can include the trucking company, the manufacturer, the plaintiff if the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury, and, in appropriate circumstances and subject to statutory requirements, nonparties who are shown to have contributed to the injury. Third, each defendant’s monetary liability is calculated by multiplying the total damages by that defendant’s percentage of fault.
Under this structure, if a jury were to find a trucking company responsible for a particular share of the fault and a manufacturer responsible for the remaining share, each would generally be liable only for its own share of the damages. Because each defendant pays according to its own percentage, there is generally no occasion for one to seek contribution from the other. The apportionment itself accomplishes the division of responsibility.
The Effect of Comparative Fault
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 also incorporates Georgia’s modified comparative negligence rule. The plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s own percentage of fault, and if the plaintiff is found to be fifty percent or more at fault, the plaintiff is barred from recovering. Any fault assigned to the plaintiff therefore reduces the total recoverable damages before the defendants’ shares are calculated.
Exceptions Where Joint Liability and Contribution May Still Apply
The apportionment framework does not eliminate joint and several liability and contribution in every situation. Georgia courts have recognized an important exception for tortfeasors who act in concert. Where defendants engage in concerted conduct, meaning they act together in pursuit of a common plan or design, their fault has been treated as indivisible, and joint and several liability has continued to apply. The Georgia Supreme Court has indicated that the apportionment statute did not abrogate the common-law rule imposing joint and several liability on persons who act in concert. In that situation, the traditional contribution principles can remain relevant because the fault is not divided into separate percentages.
Whether a trucking company and a manufacturer acted in concert, as opposed to committing separate and independent acts of negligence and product defect, is a fact-specific question. In the typical case, a manufacturer’s alleged design or manufacturing defect and a trucking company’s alleged operational negligence are independent acts rather than concerted conduct, which means the apportionment rule of several liability ordinarily governs.
It should also be noted that the law in this area has been the subject of ongoing litigation and legislative attention in Georgia, including questions about apportionment in cases with a single named defendant and about the treatment of nonparties. The precise application of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 can depend on the version of the statute in effect and on developing case law.
Product Liability and the Manufacturer’s Exposure
Claims against a truck or component manufacturer are typically product liability claims, which in Georgia may be based on theories such as negligence or strict liability for a defective product under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11. The existence of a product liability theory does not by itself change the apportionment analysis between two defendants; the jury still assigns each responsible party a percentage of fault, and each defendant’s liability is generally several.
Conclusion
When both a truck manufacturer and a trucking company are found liable for a Georgia truck collision, the financial responsibility is generally divided through apportionment under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 rather than through traditional contribution. The trier of fact assigns each responsible party a percentage of fault, and each defendant is ordinarily liable only for its own percentage of the total damages, with no right of contribution between them. The principal exception is concerted conduct, where the older doctrine of joint and several liability, and the contribution principles that accompany it, can still apply because the fault is treated as indivisible.
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.