Before February 2005, a Georgia plaintiff with a winning verdict against multiple defendants could collect the entire judgment from any one of them, leaving the defendants to sort out contribution among themselves. That rule, called joint and several liability, gave plaintiffs a powerful collection tool in multi-defendant cases. The 2005 Tort Reform Act eliminated it in most circumstances. The change reshaped how Georgia plaintiffs collect on multi-defendant verdicts and shifted significant collection risk onto the plaintiff’s side. This article walks through the pre-2005 rule, the 2005 amendment, the current several liability regime, the limited exceptions where joint liability survives, and the practical consequences for plaintiffs in serious-injury cases.
The old rule (pre-2005) #
Joint and several liability was a long-standing common-law doctrine that Georgia inherited and codified. Under the rule, when two or more defendants were each found to have proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm, each defendant was independently liable for the full amount of the judgment. The plaintiff could pursue the full judgment against any one defendant or any combination, regardless of how the underlying fault would be divided.
The doctrine made sense within a traditional tort framework. Each defendant whose conduct contributed to the harm was treated as a complete cause of the harm in the legal sense, and the law placed the burden of sorting out relative fault on the defendants rather than the plaintiff. A defendant who paid more than its fair share had a right of contribution against the co-defendants under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-32, but the practical work of collecting the contribution fell on the defendant who had been forced to pay the full judgment.
The collection consequences were significant for plaintiffs. A defendant with deep pockets and a co-defendant with no insurance and no assets produced the same outcome for the plaintiff: the plaintiff collected the full judgment from the solvent defendant. The insolvent co-defendant’s lack of resources was not the plaintiff’s problem.
The 2005 amendment #
The Tort Reform Act of 2005 (2005 Ga. Laws 1, § 12) amended O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 to substitute apportionment for joint and several liability in most tort cases. The current language of subsection (b) sets the rule:
“Damages apportioned by the trier of fact as provided in this Code section shall be the liability of each person against whom they are awarded, shall not be a joint liability among the persons liable, and shall not be subject to any right of contribution.”
Three changes operate together. First, the jury apportions damages by percentage of fault. Second, each defendant’s liability is limited to that defendant’s apportioned share. Third, the right of contribution among co-defendants is eliminated, because each defendant pays only its own share at the front end and there is nothing to contribute toward.
The 2005 reform reflected a policy judgment that placing the cost of an insolvent co-defendant on the remaining solvent defendant was unfair to that solvent defendant. The legislature shifted that cost to the plaintiff, on the theory that the plaintiff had selected the defendants and was in the best position to evaluate collection risk before filing suit.
Several liability under current law #
After 2005, Georgia operates under several liability for most tort cases. The mechanics work this way:
- Each defendant is liable only for that defendant’s apportioned percentage of the damages
- No defendant pays more than its allocated share, even if a co-defendant is insolvent
- The plaintiff collects from each defendant separately, up to that defendant’s available coverage and assets
- No right of contribution exists among defendants for amounts paid on the judgment
This produces a fundamentally different collection picture from the pre-2005 era. A plaintiff with a $500,000 verdict against three defendants in a typical Georgia car accident case after 2005 collects up to $500,000 only if each defendant has coverage or assets adequate to its apportioned share. If one defendant is uninsured and judgment-proof, the plaintiff loses that defendant’s share entirely. The other defendants do not absorb the gap.
The implications for plaintiff strategy are significant. Defendant selection matters more than it did before 2005. A plaintiff who declines to sue a deep-pocket defendant who arguably contributed to the harm leaves money on the table even if the case prevails against the named defendants. When suit is brought against multiple defendants but some are dismissed before trial, the plaintiff cannot recover the dismissed defendant’s apportioned share from the remaining defendants.
When joint liability still applies (limited exceptions) #
The 2005 amendment did not eliminate joint liability across the board. Several categories of cases preserve joint liability in narrow contexts:
- Concert of action. When two or more defendants act in concert (sharing a common purpose or design to commit the underlying tort), joint liability may apply. The doctrine survives the apportionment framework because concerted action is treated as if the actors are a single tortfeasor.
- Vicarious liability. When one defendant is vicariously liable for another’s conduct (employer for employee under respondeat superior, principal for agent within scope of authority), the vicariously liable party shares the agent’s liability. This is functionally a form of joint exposure, though the mechanics differ from traditional joint and several liability.
- Indivisible injury produced by intentional conduct. Some Georgia courts have applied joint principles to indivisible injuries from intentional torts, though the case law in this area is unsettled.
- Pre-2005 cases. Any case where the cause of action accrued before February 16, 2005, the effective date of the reform, is governed by the old rule. These cases are rare now but can still arise in claims involving long-tail injuries or delayed discovery.
The exceptions are narrow and fact-specific. The default rule for Georgia car accident cases filed today is several liability under § 51-12-33, with collection capped at each defendant’s apportioned share.
Practical impact on plaintiffs #
The shift from joint and several liability to several liability has reshaped Georgia plaintiff practice in three significant ways:
- Defendant selection requires collection analysis. A plaintiff who names a defendant must verify that the defendant has adequate coverage or assets to satisfy that defendant’s likely apportioned share. Suing a judgment-proof defendant is no longer a practical recovery strategy under the post-2005 framework.
- UIM coverage matters more. The plaintiff’s own underinsured motorist coverage often fills the gap created by under-insured or uncollectable defendants. Plaintiffs who carry only the statutory minimum UIM are exposed to significant uncovered losses in serious-injury multi-defendant cases.
- Settlement structuring requires care. A plaintiff who settles with one defendant before trial reduces the available recovery against the remaining defendants by the settled defendant’s apportioned share, not by the settlement amount. A poorly structured early settlement can cost the plaintiff money even if the settlement amount looked attractive at the time.
The collection-risk shift is the most consequential single change in Georgia tort practice from the 2005 reform. The math is brutal. Insurance coverage analysis, defendant identification, and case strategy all run through the apportionment framework rather than around it.
The shift in practical perspective #
Joint and several liability was a tool that protected plaintiffs from the consequences of suing co-defendants with inadequate resources. Several liability shifts that protection to the defendant side, and the plaintiff bears the collection risk for any defendant whose apportioned share exceeds available coverage and assets. The framework is settled at the statutory level, even as the courts continue to work out interpretive questions around specific applications.
For Georgia plaintiffs today, the practical lesson is that the verdict number is not the recovery number. The recovery depends on the apportionment, the available coverage, and the collectability of each defendant. Companion pieces in this cluster address the related doctrines: multi-defendant apportionment mechanics, non-party fault under Zaldivar v. Prickett, and vicarious liability for employers.
Disclaimer #
This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and the publisher, the author, or any law firm. Personal injury law in Georgia is fact-specific, and the rules summarized here can change through new legislation, regulatory updates, and court decisions after this article’s publication date. Statutes, case citations, and procedural rules referenced in this article are summarized for general understanding; readers should consult the current official text of any law cited and should not rely on this article for the resolution of a specific legal question.
If you have suffered an injury in Georgia and want to understand how the law applies to your situation, consult a licensed Georgia personal injury attorney. An attorney can review the facts of your case, identify the deadlines and procedural requirements that apply to you, and advise you on your options under current Georgia law.
Nothing in this article should be read as a guarantee of any particular outcome, a recommendation about whether to settle or pursue litigation in any specific case, or a substitute for personalized legal counsel.