Georgia’s 2025 tort reform law, known as Senate Bill 68 (SB 68), introduces significant changes to personal injury claims, premises liability, and civil litigation procedures. Passed by the Georgia General Assembly in March 2025 and awaiting the governor’s signature, the legislation could reshape how lawsuits are filed, argued, and resolved—with implications for plaintiffs, businesses, and attorneys statewide.
Key Changes in Georgia’s 2025 Tort Reform Law (Senate Bill 68)
Senate Bill 68 overhauls several aspects of tort law and civil procedure. It introduces new rules on damage awards, evidence and trial structure, while tightening certain legal processes. Notable provisions include:
- Pain and Suffering “Anchoring” Ban: Attorneys may no longer suggest specific dollar amounts to juries for a plaintiff’s pain and suffering during closing arguments. Juries must determine noneconomic damages without being guided by proposed figures. This aims to reduce inflated awards and reinforce evidence-based decisions.
- Medical Costs and “Phantom Damages”: The law allows jurors to see both the billed amount for medical care and the amount actually paid by insurers or the plaintiff. By exposing discrepancies between charges and actual payments, the rule addresses “phantom damages” and provides juries with a fuller picture of real costs.
- Split Trials for Liability and Damages: Courts may separate trials into two phases. In the first, the jury decides liability; in the second, it determines damages—but only if liability is established. This approach is designed to focus juries on facts before they hear emotional testimony about injuries. Exceptions exist for small claims and certain sensitive cases.
- Seat Belt Evidence Admissibility: Courts may now allow evidence about whether a plaintiff was wearing a seat belt in vehicle accident cases. Judges will weigh its relevance and potential for unfair prejudice. This change aligns with Georgia’s seat belt laws and may influence assessments of fault and damages.
- Premises Liability Adjustments: Plaintiffs seeking to hold property owners liable for third-party crimes must now show that a specific, preventable hazard—such as broken lighting or inadequate security—facilitated the crime. Prior knowledge of neighborhood crime is no longer sufficient on its own. An exception remains for survivors of sex trafficking, who retain broader grounds to file suit.
- Third-Party Security Contractors: Liability protections now extend to contracted security firms. These third parties are held to the same legal standards as the property owners who hire them.
- Limits on Lawsuit Refiling: Plaintiffs who voluntarily dismiss a case may refile it only once. This provision discourages repeated filings and venue shopping, promoting more efficient case resolution.
- Attorney Fee Recovery Restrictions: A party may not recover attorney’s fees multiple times for the same work under different statutes. Fee recovery in contract disputes remains allowed if the breach involved bad faith or stubborn resistance.
How Georgia’s Tort Reform Law Affects Renters and Tenants
Georgia renters could see indirect effects from SB 68, particularly in how landlord liability is treated. Property owners are now less likely to be held responsible for crimes on their premises unless a preventable hazard directly contributed to the incident.
For example, if a tenant is assaulted in a stairwell, they must now show that a known safety issue—like broken lighting or a faulty gate—enabled the attack. General awareness of crime in the neighborhood no longer suffices.
While the law may discourage weak claims, it could also make it harder to pursue valid cases that don’t meet the new burden of proof. In response, some landlords may proactively enhance physical safety measures to limit liability exposure.
What Senate Bill 68 Means for Small Businesses in Georgia
Retailers, service providers and other small businesses are among those expected to benefit from SB 68. Under the revised premises liability rules, businesses are less likely to face lawsuits stemming from third-party crimes unless a specific act of negligence can be shown.
This shift could contribute to lower liability insurance premiums over time and reduce the frequency of settlements driven by the threat of unpredictable jury awards. Businesses may also welcome the ability to present actual medical costs to juries and the prohibition on pain-and-suffering anchoring, which could result in more consistent trial outcomes.
How Georgia Attorneys Are Responding to Senate Bill 68
Attorneys representing plaintiffs will likely need to adjust strategies in response to the new law. The ban on anchoring noneconomic damages removes a key tool for framing jury expectations. Bifurcated trials mean that lawyers must first secure a liability finding before presenting evidence of injuries or losses.
Changes to evidence rules and damage calculations may also shift the economics of litigation. Some attorneys may decline cases that no longer appear viable under the revised standards. Legal aid organizations could see greater demand as individuals with lower-value claims face difficulty securing representation.
Defense attorneys may view SB 68 as a more favorable legal framework. The law introduces clearer procedures, potentially fewer extreme awards and added tools such as split trials and admissible seat belt evidence.
What Senate Bill 68 Could Mean for Civil Plaintiffs
Some attorneys say the new law could make it harder for individuals to bring certain civil cases. For example, without the ability to suggest a dollar amount for pain and suffering, juries must rely entirely on their own judgment when awarding damages that don’t come with a clear price tag.
Splitting trials into separate phases may also increase costs and stretch out the timeline. That can create a barrier for people with limited means. And in premises liability cases, plaintiffs now have to point to a specific safety issue — like a broken light or unsecured entrance — that contributed to the harm. A general history of crime in the area no longer meets the standard.
Proponents believe the changes will help reduce excessive lawsuits. Others see them as new obstacles that could make it harder for valid claims to move forward.
Has Georgia Tried Tort Reform Before?
Yes. In 2005, the state enacted a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. But in 2010, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled the cap unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to a jury trial under the state constitution.
Senate Bill 68 avoids that issue by not imposing fixed dollar limits on jury awards. Instead, it modifies procedures and rules of evidence to influence trial outcomes without directly capping damages.
Looking Ahead: Senate Bill 68 and Civil Lawsuits in Georgia
SB 68 is expected to shape how attorneys evaluate cases, how juries award damages, and how plaintiffs pursue civil justice in Georgia. Supporters argue that the law will reduce lawsuit abuse, stabilize insurance costs and improve the state’s business climate. Critics counter that it could limit access to justice, especially for lower-income individuals and crime victims.
As courts begin applying the new rules, early rulings will set the tone for how the law functions in practice. Individuals considering civil litigation should consult legal counsel to understand how SB 68 may affect their rights.
Whether the law achieves its intended goals will depend on how it balances the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, and the broader public in Georgia’s evolving civil justice system.
