A truck accident often involves more than one party who may bear some responsibility. A driver, a motor carrier, a vehicle or component manufacturer, a maintenance contractor, a shipper or broker, and another motorist can all be potential defendants. How responsibility is divided among multiple parties, and whether one paying party can recover from another, depends on the legal framework Georgia applies. That framework changed substantially in 2005, and the change has a direct effect on contribution claims.
Joint and several liability under the older rule
Under the common-law rule that prevailed in Georgia before 2005, joint and several liability meant that when two or more parties together caused a single, indivisible injury, each could be held responsible for the entire amount of the plaintiff’s damages. An injured person could collect the full judgment from any one defendant, regardless of that defendant’s relative share of fault.
This rule was paired with a right of contribution. A defendant who paid more than its proportionate share could seek contribution from the other responsible parties to recover the excess. Contribution was the mechanism that redistributed the loss among joint tortfeasors so that a single defendant did not ultimately bear the entire burden of a shared wrong.
The 2005 apportionment statute
Georgia substantially changed this structure with the Tort Reform Act of 2005, codified in relevant part at O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33. The statute directs that, where damages are awarded, the trier of fact apportions the award among the persons who are liable according to each person’s percentage of fault. Each defendant is generally liable only for the portion of the damages corresponding to that defendant’s own share of fault.
The statute states that damages apportioned against a person are the liability of that person and are not subject to any right of contribution. In practical terms, this provision largely abolished joint and several liability among defendants and, with it, the traditional contribution claim. When the apportionment regime applies, a defendant pays its own apportioned share and has no right to recover any part of that payment from a co-defendant, because each defendant’s liability has already been limited to its own percentage of fault.
The effect on contribution claims
The consequence for contribution claims is significant. Where O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33 governs and fault is apportioned, contribution among joint tortfeasors generally does not exist. A defendant does not overpay its share, so there is nothing to recover from another defendant. The statute replaced the older model of full joint liability followed by contribution with a model of several liability in which each party’s exposure is fixed by its own percentage of fault from the outset.
This is the central effect to understand. In a typical Georgia truck accident case decided under the apportionment statute, a driver, a motor carrier, and a manufacturer each pay according to the percentage of fault the fact finder assigns. None of them can later sue the others for contribution, because none of them was held liable beyond its own share.
Apportionment to nonparties and single-defendant cases
The apportionment framework also allows fault to be assigned, where the evidence supports it, to persons who are not parties to the lawsuit. A defendant who contends that an absent person contributed to the collision may present evidence of that person’s fault so the fact finder can assign a percentage to the nonparty, which reduces the percentage borne by the defendant.
The reach of nonparty apportionment was the subject of significant developments. In Alston & Bird LLP v. Hatcher Management Holdings, LLC, decided in 2021, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the apportionment provision allowing reduction of damages by fault assigned to nonparties did not apply in cases against only a single defendant. The Georgia General Assembly responded by amending O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33 in 2022 to make apportionment available in actions brought against one or more persons, which restored apportionment, including to nonparties, in single-defendant cases for causes of action accruing on or after the amendment’s effective date.
The concerted action exception
The abolition of joint and several liability is not absolute. Georgia courts have recognized that the apportionment statute did not eliminate the common-law rule imposing joint and several liability on persons who act in concert. When parties engage in concerted action, that is, when they act together pursuant to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act, joint and several liability can still apply, and the analysis differs from the ordinary apportionment case. This exception is narrow and depends on proof that the parties acted in concert rather than merely each contributing independent negligence to a single result.
Settlement and set-off considerations
Apportionment also interacts with settlement. When a plaintiff settles with one of several potentially responsible parties, the apportionment framework affects how the remaining defendants’ exposure is calculated. A defendant may seek to have fault assigned to a settled party, and the treatment of amounts paid in settlement is part of the apportionment analysis. Because contribution generally does not exist under the statute, the redistribution of loss that contribution once performed is instead handled through the apportionment of fault among parties and nonparties.
Conclusion
In Georgia truck accident cases, joint and several liability among defendants was largely abolished by O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, enacted in 2005. Under that statute, each defendant is generally liable only for its own apportioned share of fault, and because no defendant overpays, the traditional right of contribution among joint tortfeasors generally no longer exists. Fault may be apportioned to parties and, with the 2022 amendment following the Hatcher Management decision, to nonparties even in single-defendant cases. A narrow exception preserves joint and several liability for persons who act in concert. The overall effect is that contribution claims have been replaced by a system of several liability in which responsibility is divided by percentage of fault.
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.