Trial procedure in Georgia truck accident cases

A Georgia truck trial follows ordinary civil procedure, with two features that change its shape. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-15, any party can now demand that fault be tried first, and the Court of Appeals says the court must honor a timely demand. And the federal safety rules can come in through experts and negligence per se instructions. The sequence is pretrial order, jury selection, opening, evidence, charge, and closing. Time estimates vary by court and are not set by statute.

The stages and what controls them

Stage	Source	What it decides
Pretrial order	§ 9-11-16	Issues and witnesses for trial
Election to try fault first	§ 51-12-15	Structure of the whole trial
Expert challenges	§ 24-7-702	Which opinions the jury hears
Jury selection	§§ 15-12-122, 15-12-133	The panel
Opening and closing order	§ 9-10-186	Who speaks first and last
Argument time	§ 9-10-180	Two hours a side, unless the court allows otherwise
Arguing noneconomic value	§ 9-10-184	When and how a figure can be argued
Apportionment	§ 51-12-33	Each defendant's share

The split trial

Section 51-12-15(a) lets any party, by written demand before the pretrial order is entered, elect a structure: fault and percentages first, compensatory damages second, and then, if needed, punitive damages under § 51-12-5.1(d) and fees. Under (b), the court may reject the election on motion only for an alleged sexual offense with a likelihood of serious distress from testifying twice, or an amount in controversy under $150,000.

Transcontinental Carriers v. Bennett, A26A1643 (2026), is an early truck decision applying the section. The court noted that trifurcation under § 9-11-42(b) is at the trial court’s option, while § 51-12-15 “now requires a trial court in personal injury and wrongful death cases to trifurcate the trial upon timely written demand”. It affirmed a $7,000,000 judgment and a fee award. On first-phase evidence, it found no abuse of discretion where the plaintiff detailed his injuries and their extent, because proving fault requires proving the injuries and proximate cause. The trial court there had reserved evidence of permanent injuries for the second phase.

This changes planning. The jury may decide the percentages before hearing what compensation is sought. The carrier’s safety history, if it is admissible at all, may fall in a particular phase. Witnesses may have to be scheduled more than once.

Before the jury comes in

Motions in limine in a truck case may address:

• FMCSA compliance records and safety scores;
• prior crashes and citations for the driver or carrier;
• later repairs or policy changes;
• how far each expert may go; and
• settling parties and non-party fault.

Spoliation may be argued here too. Kelley v. Blue Line Carriers, 300 Ga. App. 577 (2009), lists the available sanctions, including a jury charge creating a rebuttable presumption that lost evidence would have been harmful. Sentry Select v. Treadwell, 318 Ga. App. 844 (2012), reversed the harshest sanction where the findings did not support it. See evidence preservation.

Expert opinions are tested under § 24-7-702, and each side may challenge the other’s. See expert disclosures and Daubert.

Jury selection

Under § 15-12-133, parties have a right to individual examination of the panel. In superior court, § 15-12-122(b) gives each party a panel of 24, and the parties “strike alternately, with the plaintiff exercising the first strike, until a jury of 12 persons is impaneled”. In state court, (a) provides for a smaller panel, and, where the claim exceeds $50,000 under House Bill 543 (2023), a demand in writing before the trial term can bring in the 12-person procedure. Multiple defendants may raise a question about how strikes are shared, which is a matter for the court.

Evidence and the regulatory framework

A plaintiff’s case can cover the crash, the investigating officer, the driver as an adverse witness, a safety witness from the carrier, experts, treating providers, and damages. How federal rules reach the jury depends on the theory. Not every violation matters. In Parker v. R & L Carriers, 253 Ga. App. 628 (2002), a regulation’s alleged violation “was not the proximate cause of the accident”. In Collins v. Mitchell, 282 Ga. App. 860 (2006), it was for the jury to decide whether the regulation applied to the collision. Charges on sudden emergency and assumption of risk have produced reversals in truck cases, as in Sawyer v. Marjon Enterprises, 312 Ga. App. 619 (2011), and Jimenez v. Morgan Drive Away, 238 Ga. App. 638 (1999). So jury instructions deserve their own preparation.

Arguing the case

Section 9-10-186 gives the plaintiff opening and concluding arguments when the plaintiff has the burden. If the defendant introduces no evidence or admits a prima facie case, the defendant gets them, but a defendant who offers any evidence on the extent of damages, beyond cross-examination, is deemed not to have admitted one. Section 9-10-180 limits argument to two hours a side, and the judge can extend it.

For a trial after the 2025 act, § 9-10-184 limits arguing the value of noneconomic damages to the first opportunity after the close of evidence, with its own rule for concluding argument. Punitive damages use a clear and convincing standard under § 51-12-5.1(b). See non-economic damages.

The verdict form

A form may ask about each defendant’s liability, percentages of fault for all, each damages category, and punitive damages if applicable. In a split trial the questions come in phases. Under § 51-12-33(g), a plaintiff who is 50 percent or more responsible recovers nothing. A vicariously liable carrier and its driver may be treated as one for apportionment, as in PN Express v. Zegel. Direct negligence by a carrier is a separate question after Quynn v. Hulsey.

After the verdict

Motions for new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict can follow. Under § 51-12-12, a court may address an award “clearly so inadequate or so excessive as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence”. A party may appeal. A settlement can occur at any point, and a large unpaid verdict can raise coverage questions.

Preparing for this structure

Decide early whether to demand a split trial, or how to respond to one. Then map each witness to each phase, and prepare the charges and verdict form together. Those decisions shape the rest of the preparation, as trial preparation describes.

Sources

• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-10-180, 9-10-186, 9-11-16, 15-12-122, 15-12-133, 24-7-702, 51-12-5.1, 51-12-12, 51-12-33
• Georgia House Bill 543 (2023), as passed: § 15-12-122
• Senate Bill 68, as passed (2025): Sections 1, 8, 9(b)
• Transcontinental Carriers v. Bennett, A26A1643
• Kelley v. Blue Line Carriers, 300 Ga. App. 577
• Sentry Select v. Treadwell, 318 Ga. App. 844
• Parker v. R & L Carriers, 253 Ga. App. 628
• Collins v. Mitchell, 282 Ga. App. 860
• Sawyer v. Marjon Enterprises, 312 Ga. App. 619
• Jimenez v. Morgan Drive Away, 238 Ga. App. 638

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.