How fault is apportioned among multiple defendants in Georgia car accidents

A Georgia jury divides damages among liable defendants by each one’s percentage of fault, and each defendant owes only its own share. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(b), that share “shall not be a joint liability” and is not subject to contribution. So a plaintiff, and not a co-defendant, bears the loss when a defendant at fault has too little insurance to pay. The arithmetic and the identity of every responsible driver therefore matter from the start.

The order of operations

1. The factfinder sets the total damages.
2. It considers the fault of “all persons or entities who contributed”, under (c), including persons who are not defendants.
3. If the plaintiff has some fault, the judge reduces the award “in proportion to his or her percentage of fault”, under (a).
4. The award is apportioned among those liable “according to the percentage of fault of each person”, under (b).
5. A plaintiff who is 50 percent or more responsible receives nothing, under (g). See the 50 percent bar.

Apportionment does not depend on the plaintiff having fault. Cavalier Convenience v. Sarvis, 305 Ga. App. 141 (2010), reversed a trial court that had refused to apportion among defendants where the plaintiff bore none.

A worked example

For example, imagine a chain collision with $300,000 in damages. The jury assigns 10 percent to the plaintiff, 60 percent to Driver A, 25 percent to Driver B, and 5 percent to Driver C.

Step	Calculation	Result
Plaintiff's reduction	$300,000 × 10%	$30,000 off
Remaining	$300,000 − $30,000	$270,000
Driver A	$300,000 × 60%	$180,000
Driver B	$300,000 × 25%	$75,000
Driver C	$300,000 × 5%	$15,000
Check	$180,000 + $75,000 + $15,000	$270,000

A table that multiplies $270,000 by 60, 25, and 5 percent reaches $243,000. It takes the plaintiff’s 10 percent twice and leaves $27,000 unassigned. The statute does not print a formula, and a verdict form may ask the question differently, for example by stating defendants’ shares as percentages of 100 among themselves. The principle to check is that the plaintiff’s fault is deducted once.

Who bears the shortfall

Under this rule, a low-limits driver at fault creates a gap the others do not fill. Continuing the example, assume Driver A has $100,000 in liability coverage and no collectible assets.

Source	Owes	Likely collected
Driver A	$180,000	$100,000
Driver B	$75,000	$75,000 if covered
Driver C	$15,000	$15,000 if covered
Gap		$80,000

The same is true for a bankrupt defendant, or a share placed on someone beyond the reach of a judgment. Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage may help with a driver’s shortfall, as explained on underinsured motorist coverage. A state defendant has its own limit under the Georgia Tort Claims Act.

Non-parties and settling drivers

Subsection (d)(1) says negligence or fault of a non-party “shall be considered if the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the nonparty or if a defending party gives notice not later than 120 days prior to the date of trial”. These are two routes. A settled person’s fault can be considered even without the 120-day notice.

Under (f), a percentage assigned to a non-party only helps determine the named parties’ percentages, and it does not create liability for that non-party or become evidence of liability elsewhere. The details are on the non-party fault rule.

This shapes settlement decisions. A plaintiff who settles with one driver for a modest sum may later face a jury that puts a large share on that driver, while the remaining defendant owes only its own percentage. A settlement should be tested against what a jury may assign to that person.

Employers and other vicarious defendants

A driver and an employer liable only for that driver are not treated like two independent wrongdoers for this purpose in the ordinary sense, since the employer’s liability derives from the driver’s. Employer vicarious liability has that discussion. A separate negligent hiring or entrustment theory is a different question, and that page covers it too.

The 2022 change in the wording

Subsection (b) now says “one or more persons”. The Supreme Court had held in Alston & Bird v. Hatcher, 312 Ga. 350 (2021), that the older “more than one person” wording did not call for apportionment to a non-party in a single-defendant case. The General Assembly then changed the text. The session law is Ga. L. 2022, p. 802, § 1, HB 961, and it applies to cases filed after May 13, 2022. An older case filed before then may still follow the former wording, so the filing date matters. The history is on joint and several liability.

A split trial can decide percentages first

Section 51-12-15, added in 2025, lets any party elect to try fault first. The first phase determines fault and percentages before the total damages, and the evidence in that phase is limited to those issues. 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. Under Section 9(b) of Senate Bill 68, this applies to pending cases unless that would be unconstitutional.

What this means for building a claim

Before filing, identify every driver and entity that may have contributed, what coverage each has, and whether the plaintiff has any UM coverage. Evidence that moves fault from a well-insured defendant to a thinly insured one lowers what can be collected, even if the total verdict stays the same.

Sources

• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: § 51-12-33
• Cavalier Convenience v. Sarvis, 305 Ga. App. 141
• Senate Bill 68, as passed (2025): Sections 8, 9(b), enacting § 51-12-15

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.