Georgia’s modified comparative negligence rule explained (the 50% bar)

A Georgia plaintiff who is 50 percent or more responsible for the injury recovers nothing, and a plaintiff below that line has the award reduced by their own share. O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(a) sets the reduction, and subsection (g) sets the bar. A second, older rule can also end a claim whatever the percentages look like: under § 51-11-7, a plaintiff who “by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences” of the defendant’s negligence “is not entitled to recover”.

The two provisions

Subsection (a) says the factfinder “shall determine the percentage of fault of the plaintiff and the judge shall reduce the amount of damages otherwise awarded to the plaintiff in proportion to his or her percentage of fault”.

Subsection (g) says, “Notwithstanding the provisions of this Code section or any other provisions of law which might be construed to the contrary, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to receive any damages if the plaintiff is 50 percent or more responsible for the injury or damages claimed.”

The jury sets the percentages, and the judge applies the math. On $100,000 in damages:

Plaintiff's share	Reduction	Recovery
0 percent	$0	$100,000
10 percent	$10,000	$90,000
25 percent	$25,000	$75,000
49 percent	$49,000	$51,000
50 percent	Barred	$0
60 percent	Barred	$0

The line falls between 49 and 50. An equal split is a loss for the plaintiff.

The avoidance rule

Section 51-11-7 says, in its first sentence, “If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover”. The second sentence says, “In other cases the defendant is not relieved, although the plaintiff may in some way have contributed to the injury sustained.” So a defense may argue both a percentage and avoidance. For example, imagine a driver who saw another car running a red light well ahead and had time to stop. The defense would say that person could have avoided it. How this sits next to § 51-12-33 in a given case should be checked with counsel, because a page on percentages alone leaves it out.

What can raise a plaintiff’s share

Fault is a question of evidence, and the jury has no formula. Arguments can concern speed, distraction, following distance, lane position, signaling, impairment, and whether the plaintiff had a chance to react. A traffic violation by the plaintiff can matter, as negligence per se explains, and the violation still has to connect to the harm.

Seat belts. Section 40-8-76.1(d) was changed in 2025. For causes of action commenced on or after April 21, 2025, non-use may be considered on negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, or apportionment, and “may be evidence used to diminish any recovery”, subject to § 24-4-403 and other evidence rules. Senate Bill 69 says the change does not apply to causes of action pending on that date, and prior law governs earlier-commenced ones. So the filing date decides whether the evidence can come in.

Who else is on the verdict form

The plaintiff’s number depends on who else is assigned fault. Under (c), the factfinder considers “all persons or entities who contributed”, whether or not they could be sued. A person’s share may drop if a third driver or a road contractor absorbs some fault, and rise if the only other name on the form appears less culpable. The arithmetic for several parties is on how fault is apportioned, and non-parties are on the non-party fault rule.

A word of caution about the single-defendant cases. Subsection (b) was amended in 2022 to say “one or more persons”. The session law is Ga. L. 2022, p. 802, § 1, HB 961. Before that change, apportionment under (b) did not operate the same way against a single defendant, so a case filed on or before May 13, 2022 may need a separate look. The plaintiff’s own reduction under (a) applied in either case.

The section dates to 1987, and Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 12 rewrote it. So the framework is older than the 2005 reform that some credit with creating it.

How the rule shapes a settlement

The risk has a cliff. For example, imagine $200,000 in damages and a dispute over whether the plaintiff was 40 or 55 percent at fault.

If the jury finds	Recovery from a fully collectible defendant
40 percent	$120,000
49 percent	$102,000
50 percent	$0
55 percent	$0

That is why a claim with disputed fault can settle far below its damages. The percentages in the table are illustrations. They are not predictions, and they do not state how an insurer actually values a claim. Policy limits also matter. A person with $140,000 after reduction against a $100,000 policy may look to underinsured motorist coverage for what remains, and the fault reduction applies there too.

Evidence that bears on the percentage

• Photographs of vehicle positions and damage, taken before anything is moved.
• Event data from the vehicles, if available, because speed and braking may be recorded.
• Video from businesses or dash cameras, which can be overwritten quickly, so ask soon.
• Witness names at the scene.
• Phone records, if distraction is alleged.

A plaintiff’s own recorded statement can also become evidence of fault, so it needs care. See filing a car accident claim.

The question to ask

Ask two things: what percentage could a jury reasonably assign, and could the defense argue the plaintiff could have avoided the crash altogether? A case near either boundary carries a real risk of no recovery at all.

Sources

• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 51-11-7, 51-12-33
• Senate Bill 68, as passed (2025): Section 5, revising § 40-8-76.1
• Legislative Counsel summary of 2025 general acts: Senate Bill 69, § 40-8-76.1

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.