Accident reconstruction is a regular feature of serious motor vehicle and commercial trucking litigation in Georgia. The reconstructionist uses physics, engineering, scene measurements, vehicle data, and witness information to reconstruct what happened in the seconds leading up to a collision. Before that testimony reaches a jury, however, it must pass through Georgia’s gatekeeping rules on expert evidence. This guide describes the controlling statute, the federal cases it imports, and how courts apply the test to accident reconstruction in particular.
The governing statute
The admissibility of expert testimony in Georgia civil cases is controlled by O.C.G.A. 24-7-702. Subsection (b) provides that a qualified witness may give expert opinion testimony if: (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Subsection (f) instructs Georgia courts to draw from the federal cases interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The statute identifies Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) as the federal authorities Georgia courts may consult.
Daubert in Georgia
Daubert established that the trial judge is a gatekeeper who must determine whether proposed expert testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the issues in the case. The Daubert opinion identified several non-exclusive reliability factors: whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, the known or potential error rate, the existence of standards and controls, and the degree of acceptance within the relevant scientific community.
Kumho Tire extended the Daubert reliability inquiry beyond pure science to all forms of technical and specialized knowledge, including the kind of engineering-based reasoning common in accident reconstruction. Joiner clarified that a court may exclude testimony where there is too great an analytical gap between the data and the conclusion offered.
The legislative intent provision
O.C.G.A. 24-7-702(f) contains an explicit legislative intent that Georgia courts not be viewed as more permissive than other Daubert states. The statute states that, in interpreting and applying this Code section, the courts of this state may draw from the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire. This express adoption of federal interpretive authority is unusual among state evidence codes and has meaningful consequences for how challenges are litigated.
Qualifications of the reconstructionist
The first inquiry under O.C.G.A. 24-7-702 is whether the proposed witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Accident reconstructionists in Georgia courts commonly come from backgrounds including law enforcement traffic homicide units, mechanical or civil engineering, Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstruction (ACTAR) credentialed analysts, and university-based human factors researchers. Qualifications alone are not enough, however. A qualified witness who departs from accepted methodology can still be excluded.
Reliability of methodology
Accident reconstruction draws on long-recognized principles of physics: conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, coefficient-of-friction calculations, time-distance analyses, vehicle crush analysis, and crash data retrieval from event data recorders. These methods are described in standard references published by SAE International, the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety, and the Institute of Police Technology and Management. Reconstruction calculations relying on these accepted methods generally satisfy the reliability prong of O.C.G.A. 24-7-702(b)(2), provided the expert applied them correctly.
Where reconstruction testimony tends to encounter challenges under Daubert is in three areas: (1) speculative input assumptions that are not supported by physical evidence, (2) novel or proprietary software whose error rates are not documented, and (3) opinions that go beyond what the physical evidence supports, such as definitive statements about driver perception-reaction time without site-specific data.
Sufficient facts or data
The first requirement of O.C.G.A. 24-7-702(b) is that the testimony rest on sufficient facts or data. For accident reconstruction, that typically means scene photographs, scene measurements, police reports, vehicle damage documentation, vehicle event data recorder downloads, surveillance video, witness statements, and (in commercial truck cases) electronic logging device records and engine control module data. Joiner’s analytical gap principle is most often invoked when the data set is thin and the expert reaches across that gap to a firm conclusion.
Reliable application to the facts
The third prong asks whether the expert applied the methods reliably to this case. This is where many reconstruction challenges live. An expert may be qualified, may use accepted physics, and yet may make case-specific errors, such as assuming an incorrect coefficient of friction, miscalculating skid distance, or interpreting EDR data without proper validation.
The pretrial Daubert hearing
O.C.G.A. 24-7-702(d) authorizes Georgia trial courts to hold pretrial hearings to determine the admissibility of expert testimony, often called Daubert hearings. The party offering the testimony has the burden to show admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The court’s ruling is typically entered before trial so the parties can adjust their cases.
Standard of review
Georgia appellate courts review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of discretion. Joiner held that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies even where the exclusion is outcome-determinative, and Georgia courts follow the same approach when applying O.C.G.A. 24-7-702.
Reconstruction-specific case law
Georgia decisions on accident reconstruction admissibility include Miller v. Golden Peanut Co., 317 Ga. 22 (2023), which reaffirmed the rigorous gatekeeping role of the trial court under O.C.G.A. 24-7-702. Federal courts sitting in Georgia have likewise excluded reconstruction testimony when the methodology was unsupported or the data set inadequate.
Practical contours of admissibility
Reconstruction testimony in Georgia courts is generally admitted where: the expert is qualified, the methodology is standard physics-based reconstruction, the inputs are documented and tied to scene evidence, the calculations are reproducible, and the conclusions stay within the scope of what the physical evidence supports. Testimony is more vulnerable to exclusion where: the expert relies on assumptions not grounded in evidence, the software is proprietary and untested, the analytical chain has gaps, or the opinion reaches subjective topics such as a specific driver’s state of mind.
Summary
Georgia’s standard for accident reconstruction admissibility is the codified Daubert test in O.C.G.A. 24-7-702, applied with the trial judge serving as gatekeeper for qualifications, sufficient data, reliable methodology, and reliable application. The legislative intent that Georgia courts not be a permissive jurisdiction for expert evidence, combined with the express adoption of Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire, has shaped a substantive body of pretrial litigation around reconstruction opinions.
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.