Georgia’s tort reform legislation comes at an opportune time, as jury verdicts in recent years have been the stuff of records. Georgia was rated the #1 Judicial Hellhole in 2022 and 2023, and #4 in 2024. The new statutes, signed into law on April 21, 2025, aim to promote fairness in civil litigation procedure in the Georgia state courts, reality in consideration of damages, and commonsense fairness in trials and in liability standards for property owners, managers, and security personnel when crimes occur at their property. Key procedural changes are detailed below.

Motions to Dismiss 

If a defendant files a motion to dismiss, then it shall no longer be required to file an answer until 15 days after the court either denies the motion or announces it will postpone deciding the motion until trial. Discovery will be stayed until the court rules on the motion, and the court is required to rule on the motion within 90 days after the conclusion of briefing on the motion. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12).

Voluntary Dismissals

Plaintiffs are no longer permitted to voluntarily dismiss the complaint at any time before the first witness is sworn at trial. Now, unless all parties stipulate to the voluntary dismissal, a plaintiff must first obtain a court order to dismiss the complaint more than 60 days after the opposing party filed an answer. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41).

Damages Model

The special damages model in Georgia personal injury cases is amended to remove the collateral source rule. Thus,

Truth in special damages. Special damages shall be limited to the reasonable value of medically necessary care. Juries can now consider amounts paid by health insurance or workers’ compensation. Letters of protection are relevant and discoverable. (New O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1).

The general damages (e.g., pain and suffering) available to a plaintiff are subject to these new regulations: 

General damages guidelines:

• Plaintiffs may not argue or suggest a specific amount of general damages until closing argument. 
• If the plaintiff elects to open and close the closing arguments, then he/she must make his/her specific amount known during the opening phase of his/her closing argument. 
• The argument for general damages must be rationally related to the evidence and shall not refer to values having no rational connection to the facts of the case. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184). 

Other Provisions

The playing field at trial is leveled to provide the following:

• Seatbelt evidence is admissible.
  In cases involving motor vehicle accidents, evidence that the plaintiff was not wearing his/her seatbelt is admissible and relevant to the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, proximate causation, assumption of the risk, and apportionment of fault. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1).
• Trial bifurcation/trifurcation available upon request.
  In any personal injury or wrongful death case, any party may elect to have trial bifurcated or trifurcated into separate phases: fault – damages – punitive damages/attorney’s fees.
  o Exceptions may be made to the right to bifurcation/trifurcation upon motion for cases involving alleged sexual offenses and those involving less than $150,000 in dispute. (New O.C.G.A. § 51-12-15). 

Finally, 

A new series of statutes provides governance and guidance for negligent security cases. 

• The new laws provide stricter standards for imposing liability in negligent security cases and clarify the expectations on premises owners in the state. 
• Now, in order for a premises owner/occupier to be held liable by an injured invitee for negligent security, the plaintiff must prove:

(a) The third person’s wrongful conduct was reasonably foreseeable;

a. “Reasonably foreseeable” may be established by showing that the owner/occupier:

i. Had particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person; or

ii. Reasonably should have known that a third person was reasonably likely to engage in such wrongful conduct on the premises based on one of the following:

1. Substantially similar prior incidents on the premises of which the owner/occupier had actual knowledge;
2. Substantially similar prior incidents on adjoining premises or otherwise occurring within 500 yards of the premises of which the owner/occupier had actual knowledge; or
3. Substantially similar prior incidents by the same third person that the owner/occupier had actual knowledge about and the owner/occupier knew or should have known that the third person would be on the premises.

(b) The injury sustained was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person’s wrongful conduct;

(c) The third person’s wrongful conduct was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner/occupier, which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of wrongful conduct on the premises that was substantially greater than the general risk of wrongful conduct in the vicinity of the premises;

(d) The owner/occupier failed to exercise ordinary care to remedy or mitigate the specific and known physical conduction and to otherwise keep the premises safe from the third person’s wrongful conduct; and

(e) The owner/occupier’s failure to exercise ordinary care was a proximate cause of the injury sustained. 

For a premises owner/occupier to be held liable to an injured licensee (e.g., a tenant’s social guest) for negligent security, the plaintiff must prove:

(a) The third person’s wrongful conduct was reasonably foreseeable because the owner/occupier had particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person;

(b) The injury sustained was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person’s wrongful conduct;

(c) The third person’s wrongful conduct was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner/occupier, which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of wrongful conduct on the premises that was substantially greater than the general risk of wrongful conduct in the vicinity of the premises;

(d) The owner/occupier willfully and wantonly failed to exercise any care to remedy or mitigate the specific and known physical condition and to otherwise keep the premises safe from the third person’s wrongful conduct; and

(e) The owner/occupier’s failure to exercise any care was a proximate cause of the injury sustained. 

Moving forward, in no case will a premises owner/occupier be held liable for negligent security where:

• The injured party was a trespasser 
• The injury was sustained on premises not owned/occupied by the owner/occupier 
• The wrongful conduct complained of did not occur on the premises and in a place from which the owner/occupier had the authority to exclude the third person 
• The third-party wrongdoer was either a tenant under eviction or the guest of a tenant under eviction
• The injured person came to the premises for the purpose of, or was engaged in committing a felony or theft 
• The injury occurred at a single-family residence or 
• The owner/occupier made any reasonable effort to provide information to law enforcement about a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person.

In order to assess whether the owner/occupier breached a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep persons on or around their premises safe from a third party’s wrongful conduct, courts and juries shall consider any relevant circumstances, including but not limited to:

• The security measures employed at the premises at the time the injury occurred 
• The need for any additional or other security measures
• The practicality of additional or other security measures
• Whether additional or other security measures would have prevented the injuries
• The respective responsibilities of owners/occupiers with respect to the premises and government with respect to law enforcement and public safety.

Moreover, juries are now required to apportion fault among all parties, including the criminal wrongdoer. If a jury assigns more fault to the property owner than to the criminal wrongdoer, then the court is required to order a new trial. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an apportionment of fault is unreasonable if the percentage of fault assigned to the criminal wrongdoer(s) is less than the total percentage of fault assigned to all property owners, occupiers, managers, and security contractors. (New O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 – 51-3-57).

Practical Implications of the Negligent Security Legislation

Given the new guidelines, it is critical that property owners and managers ensure that regular inspections are taking place. If there are fences, the fences should be checked and documented monthly. The same goes for gates, warning/no trespassing signs, locks, cameras, lighting, or other physical conditions or installments on the property.

Property owners and managers should consider current security measures and whether additional or different measures might be appropriate. If multiple reports of similar crimes are received, then property owners and/or managers should consider asking a security consultant to perform a premises security assessment and to make any recommendations for additional or different security measures at the premises.

The process for tenants to communicate with the property manager about any security concerns or reports should be seamless and explained to all current and new tenants. The tenants should be encouraged to provide as much detail as possible, including about the specific location of the property where the crime or other security issue occurred. All such reports should be maintained for at least three years, and a line of communication should be started with local police about tenant security complaints.

Staff should be trained to recognize when a tenant reports concerns about an immediate threat to the tenant by another person and to notify the police immediately by calling 9-1-1. The staff should record such reports to the police and maintain the records for no less than three years. 

When Do These Changes Apply?

Thankfully, the majority of changes apply immediately and take effect even in existing cases. There are two exceptions for cases accruing on or after April 21 2025: 

• New code section O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1, limiting recoverable special damages to the reasonable value of medically necessary care, allowing juries to consider the actual costs paid, and making letters of protection relevant and discoverable 
• The negligent security legislation. 

“Accruing” means that the underlying incident giving rise to the claim occurred on or after the effective date.