At Fried Goldberg LLC, we make it a point to keep track of the latest court rulings in Georgia. This commitment allows us to continue to offer our clients exceptional legal service and provide up-to-date resources for other attorneys who handle trucking accident claims.
Here’s a summary of major court decisions and case law updates for 2025.
Year-End Case Law Update 2025
SERVICE OF PROCESS
If service was made before the expiration of the statute of limitations, then it is irrelevant as to when the proof of service was filed by the plaintiff. Perry v. Peterson, 376 Ga. App. 444, 919 S.E.2d 472 (2025).
Timely service in a renewal suit is sufficient for claims against the defendant or UM insurer even though service in the initial lawsuit may not have been timely. Gallman v. Alfa General Insurance Co., 375 Ga. App. 291, 916 S.E.2d 13 (2025).
Due Diligence
A three-month unexplained gap in service after expiration of the statute of limitations warranted dismissal of the complaint for lack of diligence. Life Cycle OB/Gyn, LLC v. Gill, 375 Ga. App. 837, 917 S.E.2d 822 (2025).
Service on UM carrier 8 days after expiration of statute of limitations showed lack of diligence on part of plaintiff’s counsel because counsel mailed the packet for service of process to the sheriff’s office 20 days before expiration of the statute of limitations and never confirmed if the sheriff received the package before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Mote v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 375 Ga. App. 303, 916 S.E.2d 19 (2025)
MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS, CLAIMS, AND CLAIMANTS
Plaintiff may add or dismiss claims without court permission at any time before entry of pre-trial order. Meade, LLC v. DeKalb Realty Holding, LLC, 376 Ga. App. 852 (2025).
DISCOVERY
Failure to provide complete discovery responses after an order compelling responses to discovery warrants dismissal of the complaint. Squires v. Howard School, Inc. 2025 LX 464075.
The court must conduct a hearing and determine if the failure to respond to discovery was willful before striking a complaint or answer. Peachtree Renaissance Prop, LLC v. Choi, 376 Ga. App. 310, 918 S.E.2d 122 (2025); Benton v. Tillery, 374 Ga. App. 265, 912 S.E.2d 122 (2025).
Funding company’s amounts to purchase medical receivables was relevant and discoverable, but could not be used in other lawsuits. OMNI Healthcare, LLC v. Stacy Young Excavation, 2025 LX 433687.
DISMISSAL AND RENEWAL OF COMPLAINT
The complaint was timely filed on the Monday after the expiration of the statute of limitations on a Saturday, and the plaintiff is not required to attach the original complaint with the renewal action. Cummings v. First Transit, Inc., 376 Ga. App. 440, 919 S.E.2d 483 (2025).
Plaintiff is bound by allegations contained in his complaint as it relates to his employer and other similar legal issues and cannot be controverted by additional evidence. Webster v. Campbell, 375 Ga. App. 712, 917 S.E.2d 381 (2025).
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS
A default judgment does not forgo the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which can be contested with a timely motion. Memorial Healthcare Group, Inc. v. Vickers, 2025 LX 411607.
PRETRIAL MATTERS
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
An expert could be impeached with statements made in a podcast that were inconsistent with his testimony at trial. Buckelew v. Womack, 374 Ga. App. 711, 913 S.E.2d 789 (2025).
Decedent’s drug use was irrelevant in wrongful death case as there was no expert testimony that the drug use reduced the decedent’s life expectancy. Mendoza v. Phillips, 2025 LX 495344.
SETTLEMENTS
There is no offer capable of being accepted by the insurance company or defendant if the plaintiff makes an offer to settle a claim governed by O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-67.1 unless the plaintiff complies with all provisions of the statute. Lester v. Harmon, 2025 LX 401189.
Plaintiff accepted the counteroffer by the insurer based on communications by counsel and failure to object to the insurer including an additional party in the release. Slaughter v. Cravens, 375 Ga. App. 642, 917 S.E.2d 224 (2025).
Payment by check constitutes an acceptance of the settlement offer even though the offer stated that funds had to be immediately available, since O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 specifically allowed payment by check. Square v. Woods, 375 Ga. App. 319, 915 S.E.2d 915 (2025).
Insurer’s inclusion of a notary for signature on the release is a counteroffer that creates no enforceable settlement since the demand stated that no additional terms could be added to the release. Wright v. Spearman, 376 Ga. App. 121, 918 S.E.2d 188 (2025).
LIENS
Attorney Lien
Counsel that withdrew after the client refused to accept the settlement offer was entitled to fees based on quantum meruit for work performed by counsel after the case eventually settled based on the recreation of time spent during the contingency matter, given that there was a reasonable basis for the withdrawal. Sutherland v. Hammers, 375 Ga. App. 439, 916 S.E.2d 493 (2025)
EXPERTS
In toxic tort cases, expert opinions giving the opinion that a product increases the likelihood of developing a disease (general causation) are evaluated in two different manners. (1) if the medical community generally recognizes that the drug causes the type of harm at issue, then the courts do not need to do an extensive Daubert analysis of general causation and the only issue is specific causation to the injured person or (2) if the medical community generally does not recognize the drug or agent as both toxic and causing the type of injuries complained of, then the court must focus of the dose-response relationship – i.e. the extent in which a change in amount, intensity or duration of exposure to an agent is associated with a change in the risk of the disease in otherwards an increase in amount of exposure correlates to an increase in development of the disease at issue. Sterigenics US LLC v. Mutz, 2025 LX 414151.
Differential diagnosis methodology, where an expert takes into account the patient’s history and objective findings and uses experience to rank order possible diagnoses, is a sufficient methodology under Georgia law to support opinions on causation. Moton v. Emory Healthcare, Inc., 2025 LX 442864.
Failure to read and consider all relevant medical records, both before and after the incident, will render an expert’s differential diagnosis opinion unreliable and cause the opinion to be excluded. Arnold v. Fairway Management, 376 Ga. App. 34, 918 S.E.2d 56 (2025).
Expert opinion about the effect of a child swallowing a battery could be based on a physician’s experience in treating patients, the history and symptoms in the child’s medical records, in conjunction with research into the issues of a battery’s effect when swallowed. McWhirter v. Clinkscales, 2025 LX 413035.
A biomechanical engineer can give opinions on general causation that an accident caused enough force to cause an injury, but not specific causation that the accident caused a specific injury to the plaintiff. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Evans, 376 Ga. App. 494, 919 S.E.2d 844 (2025).
A mechanical engineer could not give opinions about the standard of care for mechanics taking inspecting and maintaining jockey trucks since he had no experience or training in these areas and was limited to only what failed on the vehicle. Johnson v. Terminal Investment Corporation, 374 Ga. App. 629, 913 S.E.2d 14 (2025).
NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
There is no duty to check traffic approaching from the rear to avoid a rear-end collision caused by a violation of the traffic laws by an approaching vehicle. Slate v. Turner, 2025 LX 426787.
Lay witnesses can give an opinion as to the speed of a car. Johnson v. Wood, 376 Ga. App. 876 (2025)
The prophecy rule that self-contradictory statements cannot be used to overcome summary judgment does not apply to the testimony of a non-party witness. Johnson v. Wood, 376 Ga. App. 876 (2025)
Without evidence of negligence, the driver cannot be held responsible for striking a pedestrian who unexpectedly stepped into the roadway. Glover v. Moore, 374 Ga. App. 514, 913 S.E.2d 384 (2025).
Plaintiff cannot recover for running into the back of a garbage truck that stopped with hazards on when there is no evidence as to why the plaintiff did not see the truck. Usry v. City of Sandersville, 374 Ga. App. 439, 913 S.E.2d 72 (2025).
DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk defense cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss before discovery is commenced. Norris v. Atlanta Braves, Inc., 376 Ga. App. 663 (2025).
Sudden emergency doctrine is only applicable if the defendant has several alternatives to choose from, and if the defendant admits that they only had one alternative, then the jury charge on sudden emergency is reversible error. Rice v. Francis, 374 Ga. App. 280, 912 S.E.2d 160 (2025).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Jury issue existed as to whether the company that contracted with Medicaid to provide non-emergency ambulance services retained control over the independent subcontractor hired to provide the transportation to plaintiff given that company exercised some control over the driver’s operations including hours of operation, acceptance of ride requests, scheduling pick up and drop times, driver training, approved vehicles and drivers and procedures for operations. Ga. Insurers Insolvency Pool v. LogistiCare Sols., LLC, 374 Ga. App. 208, 912 S.E.2d 91 (2025).
APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT
If a jury is allowed to apportion fault on its verdict form, then the judgment must be entered according to percentages of fault and cannot be changed to joint and several liability. Steusloff v. Finelli, 2025 LX 432523.
SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiff does not have to prove that the camera would have actually caught her fall to obtain a sanction for spoliation of surveillance video footage if cameras were pointed in the general area of the fall. Hailu v. John Milledge Academy, Inc., 376 Ga. App. 673 (2025)
Destruction of surveillance footage does not require the plaintiff to get past summary judgment if the destruction was unintentional, and the footage could not change the facts of the incident, which supports summary judgment against the plaintiff. Murphy v. Janilink Corporation, 374 Ga. App. 573, 913 S.E.2d 420 (2025).
PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES
In a multiple vehicle accident, the plaintiff must have some evidence that he suffered some injury from the collision with the defendant’s vehicle in order to recover against the defendant. Pontoo v. Pinson, 375 Ga. App. 25, 914 S.E.2d 448 (2025).
WRONGFUL DEATH
Decedent’s estate came into existence when he died for the purposes of ante litem notice, even though the administrator of the estate was not appointed until later, and the ante litem notice period was calculated from the date of death. Walker v. GA Dept. of Human Services, 2025 LX 451859.
ANTE LITEM NOTICE FOR GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
Service as the city attorney and chief operating officer of the city is not service on the mayor or city council of the city and thus does not comply with the requirements for proper ante litem notice. Okeke v. City of Atlanta, 2025 LX 590128
An ante litem notice must contain an offer to settle a case for a specific amount that can be accepted by the governmental entity, and simply describing the dollar amount of damages is not sufficient. City of Blue Ridge v. BR 01035, LLC, 2025 LX 497977.
Decedent’s estate came into existence when he died for the purposes of ante litem notice, even though the administrator of the estate was not appointed until later and the ante litem notice period was calculated from the date of death. Walker v. GA Dept. of Human Services, 2025 LX 451859.
The time for making an ante litem notice is not tolled for the injured party being a minor and begins to run from the date of the incident. Dates v. City of Atlanta, 321 Ga. 696, 917 S.E.2d 52 (2025).
Ante litem notice was sufficient even though it was sent to the office of the mayor or named the former mayor instead of the current mayor, as long as service was made on the office of the mayor where the current mayor worked. Villeda v. City of Macon, 2025 LX 476239; Fleureme v. City of Atlanta, 322 Ga. 180, 917 S.E.2d 593 (2025).
Sufficiency of ante litem notice is always a question of law for the court and cannot be made by a jury. Mayor & Alderman of Savannah v. Pope. 376 Ga. App. 647 (2025)
An ante litem notice to settle for either $250,000 or the policy limits of coverage, whichever is greater, is a specific amount that complies with the requirements for ante litem notice. Burts v. City of Atlanta, 376 Ga. App. 582 (2025).
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Failure to follow concussion protocols instituted by the high school association was a violation of ministerial duty that caused the coach to lose official immunity. Clark v. Ashley, 2025 LX 495312.
Failure to follow standard operating procedures is a violation of ministerial duty once an employee has received training on the SOPs, so a new employee who had not yet received training on the SOPs was entitled to official immunity on those claims. Garren v. Bryant, 2025 LX 440404.
Lawsuit against the sheriff in his official capacity is essentially a claim against the county, which is the proper vehicle for bringing a claim for the negligence of a deputy sheriff. Paulk v. Wilson, 376 Ga. App. 46, 918 S.E.2d 95 (2025).
DRAM SHOP LIABILITY
Expert testimony that a patron of a bar could have possibly shown signs of intoxication at .12 BAC was not sufficient to show that the patron was noticeably intoxicated, given the direct evidence from bartenders that the patron showed no signs of intoxication and that they were familiar with the patron. Kendrick v. Fish Tale Rests, LLC, 2025 LX 410663.
The fact that most people arrive at a bar by car is not sufficient to prove that the patron would soon be driven, given the fact that there was no evidence that the patron was holding her car keys, indicating in any manner that she may be driving, and the bartenders were not familiar with the patron. Kendrick v. Fish Tale Rests, LLC, 2025 LX 410663.
Dram shop statute O.C.G.A. § 51-1-40 does not provide for a claim for providing alcohol to a third party who assaults another person, and is limited to motor vehicle accidents, and assault claims involving alcohol are limited to a premises liability action. Leavy v. Cornelius, 376 Ga. App. 685 (2025)
Bar cannot be held responsible when an intoxicated patron is driven home by their girlfriend and then leaves the house, drives, and is in an accident. Sepid, LLC v. Dock, 374 Ga. App. 825, 913 S.E.2d 86 (2025).
LIABILITY FOR INJURIES ON THE PREMISES
Foreign Substance
The store owner was entitled to summary judgment when video footage showed that the employee conducted an inspection of area 3.5 minutes before the fall, and the water on the floor was not visible to the employee. Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 374 Ga. App. 285, 912 S.E.2d 156 (2025).
If the plaintiff cannot identify what caused her to fall, then summary judgment is warranted for the store owner. All American Quality Foods, Inc. v. Britten, 374 Ga. App. 75, 911 S.E.2d 357 (2025).
Static Condition
Minor imperfections in concrete that are open and obvious are not a dangerous static condition that a property owner has superior knowledge over an invitee, and thus summary judgment is warranted in favor of the property owner. Wells v. Khan Shell, LLC, 2025 LX 586267.
The bridge with a drop-off that approached a property was an open and obvious static condition, and the plaintiff could not recover when his car fell off the drop-off into the creek, given his prior traverse of the bridge in the past. Stevens v. Welch, 2025 LX 458522.
Construction workers’ admission that they were aware of the exposed ledge with no guardrail showed their actual knowledge of the hazard that barred their claim against the owner, since the workers had the same knowledge of the hazard as the owner. SMG Construction Services, LLC v. Cook, 2025 LX 474193.
Plaintiff who walked through crowded store for 15 to 20 minutes before tripping over one of several totes of merchandise on the floor had equal knowledge of the totes barring his injury claim. Miller v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 376 Ga. App. 712 (2025).
An unmarked asphalt feature with a high slope was a static condition that was difficult to see, and summary judgment could not be granted without evidence that the plaintiff had traversed it before without issue. Hailu v. John Milledge Academy, Inc., 376 Ga. App. 673 (2025)
Landlord Liability
Landlord liability for issues within a leased area is governed by O.C.G.A. § 44-7-14, and for common areas controlled exclusively by the landlord, it is governed by O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1. It is an error for the court to charge a jury on both statutes if the issues of negligence involve only one area. Venetian Hills Apartments, LLC v. Hughes, 2025 LX 437511.
Recreational Property Act
Historic Land District in Savannah met the definition of recreational property since no fee was charged to use the district, and the plaintiff was sightseeing, looking at buildings and trees. Mayor & Alderman of Savannah v. McLamb, 376 Ga. App. 482, 919 S.E.2d 834 (2025).
Exculpatory Clauses
Clause in condominium association’s declaration that the association provided no security on premises was not enforceable against tenant who rented premises from condo owner since tenant
did not receive clear notice of provision. Tuscany Condo Association v. C.P., 376 Ga. App. 238 (2025).
Sidewalks
The city was not responsible for the uneven sidewalk, given that there was no evidence as to how long the defect had existed, and the city received no prior notice of the defect. City of Vidalia v. Johnson, 375 Ga. App. 601, 916 S.E.2d 803 (2025).
DOG BITES
Training a dog to provide security and to attack trespassers gives rise to knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity sufficient to hold the owner liable for a dog attack. Phillip v. Pollock, 2025 LX 474702.
Violation of the ordinance that required the dog to be indoors or in an enclosure or on a leash was sufficient to hold the owner liable when the dog was in his yard and not on a leash. Phillip v. Pollock, 2025 LX 474702.
Prior incidents of the dog jumping on neighbors and nipping an elderly neighbor were sufficient evidence of the dog’s vicious propensity to hold the owner responsible for the dog attack. Steusloff v. Finelli, 2025 LX 432523.
VOIR DIRE
Plaintiff is entitled to have the jury panel qualified in open court as to the insurance company of the defendant, even if the jury panel was prequalified by the court as to the insurance company in the jury room. Mendoza v. Phillips, 2025 LX 495344.
Plaintiff was allowed to ask the jury panel whether they could award a substantial amount if supported by the evidence to test the bias of the jury panel. United Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C. v. Robinson, 376 Ga. App. 198, 918 S.E.2d 365 (2025).
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Absent a physical impact, a plaintiff cannot recover for emotional distress unless he suffers a pecuniary loss from injury to a person, but medical expenses, psychological treatment fees, lost income, and property damage do not qualify as a pecuniary loss. Doe v. Jones, 376 Ga. App. 139, 918 S.E.2d 194 (2025).
ATTORNEYS FEES
Defendant cannot be subject to attorney’s fees under 13-6-11 if there is any defense to liability put forth by the defendant. Mendoza v. Phillips, 2025 LX 495344.
Under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, bad faith to warrant an award of attorney’s fees must be more than just negligence or a violation of a traffic law and must show reckless disregard of known harmful consequences. Love v. McKnight, 321 Ga. 196, 913 S.E.2d 614 (2025).
STRIKING AN ANSWER
Violations of motions in limine on a frequent basis at trial warrant striking the defendant's answer. American Honda Motor Co. v. Christianson, 2025 LX 414217.
Striking an answer will bar the defendant from bringing up comparative negligence if the complaint alleges that the plaintiff did not cause the injuries. American Honda Motor Co. v. Christianson, 2025 LX 414217.
OFFER OF JUDGMENT
The timing requirements for an Offer of Judgment are strictly construed, and since the statute says that an offer cannot be made until more than 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on the defendant, an offer made exactly 30 days after service is invalid because it is one day premature. Vinson v. Brown, 2025 LX 451924.
Appellate work cannot be considered in determining the amount of attorneys' fees to award under the Offer of Judgment Statute. Atlanta Women’s Specialists, LLC v. Trabue, 2025 LX 448217
Offer of Judgment is not applicable to the UM carrier unless the UM carrier defends in its own name through trial. Blazys v. McKnight, 2025 LX 439733.
The trial court was allowed to consider the contingency fee charged by plaintiff’s counsel and the percentage of work done on the case after the offer of judgment to determine that 70% of the contingency fee should be awarded as fees. Ga. Bone & Joint Surgeons v. Keel, 376 Ga. App. 79, 918 S.E.2d 127 (2025).
Multiple plaintiffs can send an offer of judgment to settle all claims for a specific amount, and if clear and unambiguous, attorney’s fees can be awarded against the defendant if the total awarded to the plaintiffs exceeds the amount of the offer by 125%. The Kane Clinic, LLC v. Keitt, 374 Ga. App. 230, 912 S.E.2d 97 (2025).
When a plaintiff seeks a contingency fee under the Offer of Judgment Statute, the trial court has the discretion to award just a part of the amounts sought as the court believes is reasonable. Junior v. Graham, 374 Ga. App. 497, 911 S.E.2d 241 (2025).
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Courts can take judicial notice of proceedings and pleadings in other courts, and it is an error for the court not to consider these items if relevant to an inquiry. Perry v. Emory Health Services Management, LLC, 374 Ga. App. 41, 911 S.E.2d 229 (2025).
PROXIMATE CAUSE
The jury has to determine if the vegetation obscured the driver’s view, even though there was no testimony from the driver that he specifically remembered the vegetation playing a role. Munro v. DOT, 376 Ga. App. 425 (2025).
INSURANCE
Automobile policies cannot be cancelled retroactively to avoid coverage by an insurer after an auto accident, and auto policy cancellations must follow the rules of cancellation set out by O.C.G.A. § 33-24-45. Mamoorkhan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 376 Ga. App. 609 (2025).
Permissive user exclusion can exclude liability coverage if the owner of the vehicle specifically prohibited the driver from using the vehicle. Dollar v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 376 Ga. App. 614 (2025).
21-month delay in notifying UM insurer of accident voided coverage, given that the insured’s only excuse for the delay was that he did not know that UM coverage applied to pedestrian accidents, since ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for a delay. Patterson v. USAA, 375 Ga. App. 821, 917 S.E.2d 799 (2025).
If a plaintiff settles with a liability carrier, he must get a release with all requirements contained in O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1, or he cannot bring suit against the defendant to obtain UM benefits. Barker v. Muschett, 375 Ga. App. 585, 916 S.E.2d 796 (2025).
A jury issue may exist as to whether a person qualifies as a resident relative for UM benefits based on the person’s living accommodations at the insured’s residence, the person’s degree of independence from his family, the interconnectedness of the family members, and the financial relationship between the person and the insured. Allred v. Progressive Country Mutual Insurance Co., 374 Ga. App. 876, 914 S.E.2d 399 (2025).
CLOSING ARGUMENT
Lawyers can use excerpts from admitted videotaped depositions in PowerPoint in the closing argument. Thomas v. Accurate Steel Rule Cutting Die, Inc., 375 Ga. App. 457, 916 S.E.2d 510 (2025).
CONSENT JUDGMENT
A party that enters into a consent judgment is still considered a party at trial. Shaw v. Smith, 374 Ga. App. 623, 913 S.E.2d 750 (2025).
COLLATERAL SOURCE
Defendant cannot get an offset from the verdict for amounts paid by plaintiff’s insurer to plaintiff. E.P. Props v. Wright, 375 Ga. App. 83, 913 S.E.2d 740 (2025).
New Statutory Law for 2025
O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184
Counsel is prohibited from arguing the monetary value of noneconomic damages at trial until after the close of evidence, but is required to provide any number sought for noneconomic damages in counsel’s first closing argument. Any argument on the amount of non-economic damages must be rationally related to the evidence at trial and shall not include references to objects or values having no rational connection to the facts proved by the evidence. Counsel is allowed to ask jurors during voir dire whether they could return a verdict of zero or a verdict in excess of some “unspecified amount.”
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12
If a party files a motion to dismiss before filing an answer, discovery shall be stayed until any ruling by the court. However, if an answer is filed by any defendant, then the stay is terminated as to that defendant. The court is required to rule on any motion to dismiss within 90 days after the briefs are filed. If the court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss within 90 days, then the parties may make a motion for the stay of discovery to be lifted.
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41
The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case unilaterally within 60 days of the opposing party serving an answer. Otherwise, a case may only be dismissed by stipulation of all parties or by order of the court.
O.C.G.A. § 9-15-16
A party can only recover attorney’s fees one time, regardless of how many statutes allow recovery.
O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1
The failure of an occupant of a motor vehicle to wear a safety belt may be considered as evidence admissible on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, or apportionment of fault. The court can still determine that the evidence is not admissible if its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403.
O.C.G.A. § 51-3-50 et seq.
An owner of property is only responsible for the criminal acts of a third party to an invitee injured on the premises if the owner (1) had a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person; or (2) reasonably should have known that a third person was likely to engage in such wrongful conduct based on prior substantially similar wrongful conduct on the premises or within 500 yards of the premises; or (3) reasonably should have known that a third person was likely to engage in such wrongful conduct based on prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct by the third person. The wrongful conduct must be the reasonably foreseeable consequences of such third person exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner.
An owner of property is only responsible for injury to a licensee on the same grounds as to an invitee, but only if the owner had particularized warning of the imminent wrongful conduct of the third person.
An owner of property is not responsible for injuries to a trespasser caused by a third party.
In action for negligent security, the third party causing the injury shall be on the verdict form, and the jury must apportion a reasonable degree of fault to the third party. There is a rebuttable presumption that an apportionment of fault is unreasonable if the fault assigned to the third party is less than the total percentage of fault assigned to the owner of the property or other defendants.
A security contractor is liable for negligent security on the same basis as the owner and with the same limitations.
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1
Special damages for medical and healthcare expenses are limited to the reasonable value of the medically necessary care, treatment, or services. The jury shall consider evidence of public or private health insurance or workers’ compensation coverage in determining the amount of medical expenses to be awarded. The jury shall consider evidence of any letter of protection given to a health care provider, and medical charges shall be itemized and coded according to generally accepted medical billing practices. The jury may also consider any amounts paid to purchase the receivables and who referred the patient to the physician.
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-15
Any party may elect prior to entry of the pretrial order to have a case bifurcated, with the first phase of trial being the jury deciding fault of each defendant and nonparty, and the second phase shall be limited to the jury deciding all compensatory damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The bifurcation process can be rejected by the court if the amount in controversy is less than $150,000 or the trial involves a sexual offense that would cause distress for the injured party to testify more than once.