Key Changes Under Georgia’s 2025 Tort Reform Laws

Limits on “Anchoring” Non‑Economic Damages

One of the biggest shifts in Georgia law affects how attorneys can discuss pain, suffering, emotional distress, and similar noneconomic damages at trial.

Under the new rules, the court restricts — and in some cases prohibits — attorneys from arguing specific monetary values or ranges for non-economic damages in front of juries. This restriction applies even during jury selection and closing arguments, which limits lawyers’ ability to “anchor” jurors’ expectations with dollar figures.

Why it matters: Pain and suffering often represent a large portion of total compensation in personal injury cases. When attorneys can’t explain to juries why a certain sum realistically reflects the harm a client endured, awards may be lower than they would have been previously.

“Truth in Damages” and Medical Bills Evidence

Under the new law, evidence presented about medical expenses can include both:

• What hospitals billed, and
• What insurers actually paid.

This “truth in damages” approach aims to reduce what proponents call “phantom damages” — amounts that providers billed but patients did not actually owe.

Impact on injured Georgians: If you received care through health insurance (or another plan), the jury might see evidence only of the reduced amount actually paid rather than the higher billed amount. This can reduce the jury’s view of your economic losses and subsequently lower your total award unless your legal team strategically presents the evidence.

Bifurcated Trials (Fault vs Damages Phases)

Georgia’s reforms allow — and in some cases encourage — bifurcation of trials. This means a jury may first decide liability (fault) without ever hearing about injuries or damages. Only after establishing fault would a second phase address compensation.

Practical effect: Jurors deciding fault don’t see the human impact of an accident — no wheelchair, no medical struggles — which can lessen sympathy. Seen in isolation, fault alone might seem like a technical matter, even when someone’s life has been upended by injuries.

New Rules on Negligent Security and Premises Liability

SB 68 also alters how adults injured on another’s property — for example, in a negligent security situation — may pursue claims. Under the amended standards, plaintiffs must prove more specific knowledge by property owners about dangerous conditions to hold them liable.

This adds another hurdle for victims of crime‑related injuries occurring on business premises.

Caps on Punitive Damages

Georgia already places statutory limits on punitive damages (usually up to $250,000)), but exceptions remain when defendants acted with specific intent to cause harm or were impaired by substances.

Punitive damages serve a different purpose than compensatory damages — they punish especially reckless conduct. But limits on punitive recovery can reduce the deterrent effect that might otherwise influence defendants’ behavior and jurors’ awards.