Georgia's Landmark Tort Reform Law Reshapes Premises Liability and Medical Damages

On April 21, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed a sweeping tort reform package into law, marking the state's most significant overhaul of its civil justice system in nearly two decades. Flanked by state leaders, Kemp hailed the legislation as a victory for Georgians, promising a fairer legal environment and relief from rising insurance costs. The reforms, encapsulated in Senate Bills 68 and 69, address everything from premises liability to medical damages, aiming to curb what many see as an overly litigious system.

The signing ceremony in Atlanta brought together lawmakers, business advocates, and local leaders, all united by a shared goal: to make Georgia's courts more predictable and its economy more competitive. Yet, beneath the celebratory mood, a complex debate simmers. While supporters argue the reforms will protect businesses and consumers, others worry they could make it harder for injured Georgians to seek justice. The stakes are high in a state where tort costs hit nearly $20 billion in 2022, averaging $5,050 per household.

The new laws tackle several aspects of Georgia's civil justice system. One key change redefines premises liability, ensuring businesses are only held accountable for safety issues they directly control. Property owners must still keep their premises safe, but the law shields them from liability for incidents tied to broader community conditions. Another provision allows juries to see evidence of seatbelt use in auto accident cases, potentially reducing damages if a plaintiff’s injuries worsened due to not buckling up.

Medical damages also face scrutiny. Senate Bill 68 requires juries to consider the actual amount paid for medical care, not the often-inflated billed amount, to prevent what some call 'phantom damages.' The law also bans attorneys from using arbitrary benchmarks, like a celebrity’s salary, to suggest pain and suffering awards, aiming to ground verdicts in evidence. Other changes include allowing bifurcated trials, where liability is decided before damages, and restricting plaintiffs from dismissing cases mid-trial to refile elsewhere.

The reforms extend to third-party litigation funding, a practice where outside investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of the payout. Senate Bill 69 bans foreign entities from funding litigation, citing national security concerns, and requires funders to register while prohibiting them from influencing case strategies. These measures aim to protect plaintiffs from predatory lenders and increase transparency in the courtroom.

Advocates for the reforms, including business owners and insurance providers, argue that Georgia’s legal system had tipped too far toward plaintiffs, driving up costs for everyone. The state’s tort costs, among the highest in the nation, have burdened small businesses, which bear nearly half of the $20 billion annual price tag. Supporters say the reforms will stabilize insurance premiums, which surged 21% for auto coverage in 2024, and make Georgia more attractive to investors and job creators.

State leaders echo this sentiment, emphasizing economic benefits. House Speaker Jon Burns called the legislation a step toward financial relief for Georgians facing skyrocketing insurance rates. Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones framed the reforms as pro-Georgia, designed to protect families and businesses from hidden costs embedded in the current system. By reducing frivolous lawsuits and clarifying liability, proponents believe the laws will foster a more predictable legal climate, encouraging growth without sacrificing accountability.

Not everyone shares the optimism. Trial lawyers and consumer advocates warn that the reforms could tilt the scales against plaintiffs, particularly those with limited resources. By raising the bar for premises liability claims, the laws may make it harder for victims of violence or negligence to hold property owners accountable. The restriction on suggesting damage amounts to juries, while intended to curb inflated awards, could limit compensation for non-economic harms like pain and suffering, especially in cases involving severe trauma.

The changes to medical damages also spark debate. While aiming to prevent inflated awards, requiring juries to focus on actual payments might undervalue the true cost of care for uninsured plaintiffs or those facing future medical needs. Consumer advocates argue that these reforms, combined with procedural changes like bifurcated trials, could create barriers for individuals seeking redress, particularly in complex cases involving corporate negligence or abuse.

Georgia’s reforms are part of a national push to address rising tort costs, estimated at $529 billion across the U.S. in 2022, or 2.1% of GDP. States like Florida have pursued similar measures, focusing on limiting damages and regulating litigation funding. The tort reform movement, which gained traction in the 1970s, has historically aimed to balance victim compensation with economic stability. Past reforms, like California’s 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, showed mixed results, with some reducing malpractice premiums but others failing to lower overall costs.

The relationship between tort law and insurance premiums remains complex. While insurers argue that litigation drives rate hikes, consumer groups point to market dynamics and claim denial practices as significant factors. In Georgia, the hope is that clearer liability standards and reduced litigation costs will translate to lower premiums, but skeptics note that such outcomes are not guaranteed and depend on broader economic trends.

As Georgia’s courts begin applying these reforms, their real-world impact will come into focus. Businesses may find relief from litigation risks, potentially spurring investment and job growth. Consumers could see more stable insurance rates, easing the financial strain felt by many households. Yet, the risk remains that some Georgians, particularly those harmed by negligence, might face steeper hurdles in seeking justice, raising questions about fairness in the system.

The debate over tort reform reflects a deeper tension: how to create a legal system that protects both economic vitality and individual rights. Georgia’s experiment will be closely watched, as other states grapple with similar challenges. For now, the state stands at a crossroads, striving to balance growth with justice in a rapidly changing legal landscape.