Georgia’s Comparative Negligence Rule

The state of Georgia uses a system of comparative negligence when determining the level of fault assigned to each party in the event of an injury or other form of civil case. This system is used to determine any potential financial liability that may be assigned to a party who may or may not have contributed to the incident or injury in some way. The application of the system can vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the jurisdiction in which the issue is being addressed.

In essence, comparative negligence in Georgia requires that the finder of fact — either a jury or the judge — decide how much of the incident was due to negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, and how much, if any, was due to fault on the part of the defendants. This ratio is then used to decide which portion of the damages is to be assigned to each party. If a jury determines that the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault for their injury, then the plaintiff cannot recover any damages in civil court.

To illustrate this, let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that Mark is plaintiff in a car accident lawsuit. Mark’s lawyer argues that the driver of the other vehicle, John, was wholly at fault. John’s lawyer, however, contends that Mark was partially to blame because he was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident. In this situation, the court would likely use the theory of comparative negligence to decide how much fault should be assigned to each party.

The finder of fact would consider the total amount of damages, as well as the degree to which each party is deemed to have contributed to the resulting injury. For example, suppose the court finds that John is 75% at fault for the accident, and that Mark is 25% to blame for not wearing his seatbelt. Then, in accordance with Georgia’s comparative negligence statute, the total damages due would be reduced by 25%. That is, John would be responsible for 75% of the total damages, and Mark would be liable for the remaining 25%.

In addition to applying comparative negligence in determining fault and liability, this same concept is also used to set out ‘contributory negligence’ in cases. The contributory negligence principle allows for a plaintiff to recover some damages for their injury even if they are found to be at least partially at fault. In other words, even if a plaintiff is determined to have contributed to their own injury, they may still be recover some of the monetary damages that they lost as a result of said injury.

To be exact, the contributory negligence principle states that a plaintiff may recover damages if they were less than 50% at fault. In our same scenario, if the finder of fact determine that Mark was only 20% at fault compared to Johns’ 80% fault, Mark would still be eligible to receive some compensation for his injuries. However, the amount of money that he would receive would be diminished by the amount he is deemed to be at fault.

In short, comparative negligence is an important legal concept that is used in the state of Georgia in order to more accurately assess responsibility and liability when determining a settlement or judgment in the Civil court. The key takeaway from comparative negligence is that a plaintiff who is at least partially at fault for their own injury may still be eligible for some financial compensation for their damages.