Peachtree Injury Talk with Jordan Jewkes
In this episode of Peachtree Injury Talk, attorney Jordan Jewkes explains Georgia’s modified comparative negligence law, which affects how fault is determined in personal injury cases. If you’re 49% or less at fault, you can still recover damages—reduced by your fault percentage. But if you’re 50% or more at fault, you get nothing. Jewkes discusses how insurance companies manipulate fault assessments to avoid payouts, the importance of early evidence, and why experienced legal representation is crucial in shared-fault cases. He also breaks down complex scenarios like multi-vehicle and commercial accidents.
| 00:00 | Narrator: Welcome to Peachtree Injury Talk with attorney Jordan Jewkes. |
| 00:05 | Kevin Rosenquist: Hello and welcome to Peachtree Injury Talk with attorney Jordan Jewkes. Jordan strives to give injured victims a voice and provides strong advocacy against an often broken system. I’m your host, Kevin Rosenquist, and today’s episode is What If It’s Partly Your Fault? Understanding Comparative Negligence in Georgia. Jordan, welcome back. |
| 00:26 | Jordan Jewkes: Hey, Kevin, good to see you. Thanks for having me. |
| 00:28 | Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah, good to see you too. Let’s dive right in. What exactly is comparative negligence, and how does it apply to personal injury cases in Georgia? |
| 00:37 | Jordan Jewkes: Great question. I know it might sound boring on the surface, but it’s actually a really important and interesting area of the law. Georgia follows what’s called a modified comparative negligence statute. Think of it like a blame pie. If there's a car wreck, who gets what slice of blame? In Georgia, if you're found to be more than 50% at fault for the accident, you can't recover anything. But if you're 49% or less at fault, you can recover damages—just reduced by your percentage of fault. So, for example, if you're found to be 25% at fault, you can recover 75% of your damages. But once you hit 50% or more, you’re out of luck. |
| 01:44 | Kevin Rosenquist: So have you ever had a client right at that 49% mark? |
| 01:52 | Jordan Jewkes: That’s the golden zone we aim for when our client has some fault. It’s definitely splitting hairs, but yes, we’ll argue to the jury: “We admit there's some fault, but not more than 49%.” Because if a jury finds you even 51% at fault, you're barred from recovery—no matter how serious the injury. |
| 02:17 | Kevin Rosenquist: You mentioned a jury. Does comparative negligence only come into play if the case goes to trial? |
| 02:29 | Jordan Jewkes: No, that “blame pie” analysis starts from day one. If a potential client tells me they were backing out of a parking space and someone hit them, I immediately start thinking about percentages. If I believe the insurance company is likely to argue that my client is 50% or more at fault, that’s a really tough decision on whether to take the case. So yes, the analysis is done long before trial. But the jury is the only one who can make a binding determination of fault. |
| 03:27 | Kevin Rosenquist: Got it. So in a case where both parties share fault but don’t go to trial, how is that percentage determined? |
| 03:36 | Jordan Jewkes: Ideally, it’s determined through negotiation. A good attorney—and a good insurance adjuster, honestly—tries to predict what a jury might do. If it seems like a jury would assign your client more than 50% of the blame, you’ve got to be honest about that and potentially decline the case. |
| 04:34 | Kevin Rosenquist: Do insurance companies try to exploit comparative negligence to lower their payouts? |
| 04:43 | Jordan Jewkes: Oh, absolutely. That’s putting it lightly. Insurance companies routinely try to inflate the percentage of fault on our clients to avoid paying full damages. We had a case where our client stopped suddenly to avoid a collision. The driver behind them didn’t stop in time and rear-ended them. That driver’s insurance company tried to claim it was our client’s fault for stopping too suddenly—even though they managed to avoid hitting the car in front of them, while the other driver didn’t. That’s just one example of how insurance companies misuse the rule. |
| 05:27 | Kevin Rosenquist: So what kind of evidence becomes important in those cases? |
| 05:38 | Jordan Jewkes: The approach doesn’t necessarily change—we always gather as much evidence as possible—but the emphasis might shift. In a potential comparative negligence case, we’ll really focus on police reports, dash cam footage, body cam footage, and witness statements. We communicate with the insurance companies early and control the narrative. If we know an apology was made at the scene, we’ll prepare to explain it with the context—and ideally back it up with video that supports our client’s version. |
| 07:29 | Kevin Rosenquist: Is that why you advise clients not to admit fault at the scene? |
| 07:35 | Jordan Jewkes: Exactly. People want to be polite—they say, “I’m so sorry,” even when they didn’t do anything wrong. But insurance companies will absolutely use that against you. We tell clients: don’t apologize and don’t admit fault. Let the police handle it. |
| 08:24 | Kevin Rosenquist: Do you like the comparative negligence law as it stands? |
| 08:27 | Jordan Jewkes: Like many laws, it has good intentions. But insurance companies abuse it. Some states follow pure comparative negligence laws. In those states, you can still recover even if you're 75% at fault—you just recover 25% of your damages. Georgia’s system is harsher: if you're just over 50%, you're completely barred. So, is the law fair? Sure. Do insurance companies play fair with it? Not always. |
| 09:28 | Kevin Rosenquist: Is it difficult to determine fault percentages? There’s no formula, right? |
| 09:34 | Jordan Jewkes: Right—there’s no app or algorithm for it. It comes down to experience and the specific facts of the case. Some cases are easy. If you rear-end someone, odds are you're mostly at fault. But in other cases—like a T-bone at an intersection or two cars turning—it depends on witnesses, video footage, and other evidence. I had a recent case where someone was backing out of a parking space and got hit. Luckily, there was camera footage. We talked through it, and honestly, it was a tough case for them. |
| 10:45 | Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah, I can picture that. If you're the one backing out, it's hard not to have at least some fault unless the other driver is doing something really unusual. |
| 10:52 | Jordan Jewkes: Exactly. Fortunately, there wasn’t a major injury in that case. They just needed to know whose insurance would cover the car damage. But yeah, it was a close call. |
| 11:40 | Kevin Rosenquist: What about commercial vehicles or rideshare companies? Are those harder cases? |
| 11:42 | Jordan Jewkes: They can be. Bigger companies usually fight harder. But they also have more data—especially trucking companies. Many have inward- and outward-facing cameras, GPS data, braking data, speed data, and more. If you get to that info early, it can be a goldmine. Same goes for rideshare apps—once the app is engaged, it starts collecting lots of useful data. |
| 12:59 | Kevin Rosenquist: And what happens in multi-car accidents—three, four, five cars involved? |
| 13:07 | Jordan Jewkes: The more vehicles, the harder it gets. Think of that same blame pie—now you’ve got to cut it into even more slices. If there’s a chain-reaction crash, or someone swerves to avoid something and hits others, it becomes very complex. Sometimes we sue multiple drivers, even when our client has zero fault, because the insurance companies for the other parties can’t agree on who’s to blame. |
| 13:56 | Kevin Rosenquist: That’s wild. Can the insurance companies resolve that themselves? |
| 14:07 | Jordan Jewkes: Sometimes, yes. They’ll enter into something called arbitration, where a neutral third party hears their arguments and makes a decision about fault. We’re not involved in that directly, and it’s not binding on us, but it can help clarify things. If they can’t agree or one side won’t accept the arbitrator’s ruling, then we file a lawsuit and let the jury decide. |
| 16:37 | Kevin Rosenquist: That makes sense. Seems like a lot of moving parts, especially when your client didn’t do anything wrong. |
| 16:39 | Jordan Jewkes: Exactly. And that’s where we come in. Insurance companies try to take advantage of people who don’t know the law. That’s why we’re here—to level the playing field. |
| 16:41 | Kevin Rosenquist: Well, Jordan, thanks again for joining us today on Peachtree Injury Talk. To connect with Jordan and his team, visit jewkesfirm.com (https://www.jewkesfirm.com). And please like and subscribe to our channel. We’ve got lots more great content coming your way. |
| 16:59 | Jordan Jewkes: Thank you, Kevin. Always a pleasure. |
| 17:07 | Kevin Rosenquist: Thanks for watching. Be sure to hit that like and subscribe button and leave us a review in the comments. |
What If It’s Partly Your Fault? Understanding Comparative Negligence in Georgia breaks down the concept of comparative negligence, a critical aspect of personal injury law in Georgia. The episode centers around understanding how fault is allocated when both parties share responsibility for an accident, and how that impacts the ability to recover damages.
Jordan begins by explaining that Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence statute. He likens it to a “blame pie” and explains that if you’re found to be more than 50% at fault for an accident, you can’t recover damages. If you’re found to be less than 50% at fault, you can recover, but your recovery will be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to you. For example, if you’re 25% at fault, you’ll recover 75% of your damages. However, if you’re found to be 50% or more at fault, you lose your right to compensation entirely.
Kevin probes further, asking whether cases often hinge on the 49% fault threshold, to which Jordan confirms that this is the “golden zone” for clients with some degree of fault. He highlights the importance of arguing that a client’s fault doesn’t exceed 49%, as exceeding that threshold can bar recovery, no matter the severity of the injury.
While the law requires a jury to make a final determination of fault, Jordan emphasizes that the analysis begins much earlier, even before a case goes to trial. From the moment a client explains the details of an accident, such as backing out of a parking spot, Jordan begins calculating fault percentages. This analysis helps in deciding whether to take on a case, particularly if the insurance company might argue that the client is 50% or more at fault.
Kevin also asks about the role of insurance companies in these cases. Jordan explains that insurance companies often try to shift blame to the injured party in order to minimize their payout. He provides an example where an insurance company tried to claim that their client was at fault for stopping suddenly to avoid a collision, even though the rear-ended driver was clearly at fault. Insurance companies use comparative negligence to reduce their financial exposure, often inflating their client’s percentage of fault.
Evidence plays a crucial role in proving a client’s case, especially in comparative negligence situations. Jordan stresses the importance of gathering police reports, dash cam footage, body cam footage, and witness statements early. The goal is to control the narrative and ensure that any potentially harmful statements, such as an apology at the scene, are properly contextualized with supporting evidence.
Jordan also offers advice to clients: avoid apologizing or admitting fault at the scene, as these statements can be used against them later by insurance companies.
The conversation then shifts to the fairness of the law itself. Jordan expresses that while comparative negligence laws are intended to be fair, insurance companies frequently exploit them. He contrasts Georgia’s modified comparative negligence law with states that follow pure comparative negligence, where a person can recover damages even if they are 75% at fault.
In cases with multiple parties, such as commercial vehicles or multi-car accidents, determining fault becomes even more complicated. In accidents involving commercial vehicles, companies often have a wealth of data, such as GPS and camera footage, that can be crucial in proving fault. Jordan discusses how cases with multiple vehicles can lead to disputes between insurance companies, and sometimes, arbitration is used to resolve these issues. If arbitration doesn’t work, a lawsuit may be necessary.
In conclusion, Jordan reaffirms that insurance companies often try to take advantage of individuals who don’t understand the law. This is where personal injury attorneys, like Jordan, play an essential role in leveling the playing field and ensuring clients receive the compensation they deserve.
Peachtree Injury Talk is a podcast by Kevin Rosenquist featuring legal insights and practical advice from Georgia-based attorney Jordan Jewkes. The show focuses on personal injury law, offering listeners expert guidance on navigating insurance claims, understanding legal processes, and protecting their rights after an accident. Each episode dives into real-life case examples, common challenges injured individuals face, and actionable tips for dealing with insurance companies and legal hurdles.
Episode Summary
In this episode of Peachtree Injury Talk, attorney Jordan Jewkes explains Georgia’s modified comparative negligence law, which affects how fault is determined in personal injury cases. If you’re 49% or less at fault, you can still recover damages—reduced by your fault percentage. But if you’re 50% or more at fault, you get nothing. Jewkes discusses how insurance companies manipulate fault assessments to avoid payouts, the importance of early evidence, and why experienced legal representation is crucial in shared-fault cases. He also breaks down complex scenarios like multi-vehicle and commercial accidents.
Timestamps
00:00 – Introduction to Comparative Negligence
00:31 – Georgia’s Modified Comparative Negligence Law
01:44 – Impact of Fault Percentage on Recovery
03:44 – Role of Jury and Insurance Adjusters
04:44 – Insurance Companies Manipulating Fault
06:11 – Evidence Gathering and Case Strategy
08:00 – Advising Clients on Fault Admissions
09:00 – Fairness and Challenges of the Law
11:20 – Complications with Commercial Vehicles
12:12 – Technology in Trucking and Rideshare Cases
13:01 – Multiple Vehicle Accidents and Fault Division
14:59 – Arbitration Between Insurance Companies
16:14 – When Lawsuits Become Necessary
16:40 – Closing Remarks and Contact Info
About the Show
Peachtree Injury Talk is hosted by attorney Jordan Jewkes, who is dedicated to giving injury victims a voice and fighting for their rights against an often unfair system. Each episode provides valuable legal insights and practical advice for those navigating personal injury claims.
This show is designed to deliver general information regarding the law. Our guests will not provide tailored legal advice. If you have a personal issue and need legal support, get in touch with us for a free consultation with a Jewkes Firm attorney.
Subscribe to our newsletter for essential updates and expert legal advice.
In this episode of Peachtree Injury Talk, attorney Jordan Jewkes breaks down the financial and emotional tolls of personal injury. From immediate and long-term medical
In this episode of Peachtree Injury Talk, attorney Jordan Jewkes explores comparative negligence and its impact on personal injury cases in Georgia. Jordan breaks down
In this episode, Jordan Jewkes dives into the risks and mistakes associated with social media use after an auto accident. Jordan explains how social media
Welcome to Peachtree Injury Talk—your essential podcast for navigating the often bewildering landscape of personal injury law.
Jordan Jewkes shares real-life cases, common pitfalls to avoid, and tips on securing the compensation you deserve.
Tune in to Peachtree Injury Talk.
As South Atlanta's most trusted personal injury firm, we understand that being injured can be a traumatic and life-changing event. We fight for our clients to ensure they receive the justice they deserve.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.
