Georgia tort reform aims to change practices in judicial 'hell hole'
With tort reform in Georgia in the books, the celebration cry among Georgia defense attorneys now might be 'we're number three!'
That ranking of the Peach State was jokingly referred to by attorney Blair Cash of the Moseley Marciniak Law Firm, a South Carolina-based practice that focuses much of its work on defending trucking companies.
Cash, who is based in Georgia, made the comment in a webinar Friday to review a package of tort reforms approved by the Georgia legislature earlier this year and signed in late April by Gov. Brian Kemp.
While Cash was enthusiastic about the Georgia tort reform on the webinar, he was careful not to promise too much out of it. 'I really think it is an attempt to just level the playing field a bit, because as has been talked about, Georgia was the number one judicial hell hold for a couple of years,' he said. 'I think now we've fallen back to number three.'
The tort reform is not trucking-specific. Rather, it is an attempt to reform certain practices that have been allowed to develop over the years in the state's courts and which the Georgia trucking bar saw as being risks to the state's motor carriers.
The key legislation is known as SB 85, from Senate Bill 85. But SB 85 had a companion piece of legislation that also was approved and signed by Gov. Kemp, SB 86, which seeks to bring transparency to privately-funded lawsuits, where a plaintiff that lacks the resources to pursue litigation takes funding from an outside source that would then get a piece of whatever settlement or award was reached in the case.
According to both Cash and several law firms that have posted online commentary, SB 85 has numerous provisions, some of which are more procedural to an outsider looking in–like the discovery process being halted while a defendant's request for a dismissal is pending–and others that can more easily be understood by the side of the legal divide that has people behind the wheel and who would be the target of a lawsuit.
The end of the 'seat belt gag rule' is one of those provisions.
'In previous years in Georgia, they've all failed to change the state's draconian seat belt admissibility rule,' Cash said. That draconian rule boiled down to this: 'seat belt usage had been not admissible at all,' he said.
Cash cited an actual case where a person sitting on a seated lawn mower riding in the back of a truck–so not belted in–suffered 'horrible' injuries when the truck experienced a tire blowout. The man was left a quadriplegic, Cash said. But his lack of seat belt usage was not admissible in the resulting litigation.
He said now being able to introduce the seat belt situation of a person injured in an accident may be permissible under the new law. But Cash added that it is not automatic.
It may be preferable, Cash said, not to introduce evidence of seat belt non-usage if the crash in question is a rear end accident resulting in impact 'so insignificant that it doesn't even engage the seat belt.' It can come more into play in crashes where the issue is 'injury causation and what the plaintiffs' injuries would have been had they been wearing their seat belt,' Cash said.
The part of SB 86 that Cash said would be 'the most interesting to see' is the rule on so-called phantom damages.
As the Kennedys law firm said in an online commentary about SB86, the phantom damages provision of SB 86 'allows defendants to present evidence of the actual amounts paid by health insurers for medical care, limiting reliance on inflated billed amounts. Medical expense recovery is now capped at the reasonable value of necessary care, which may be demonstrated through both billed charges and actual payments, regardless of insurance involvement.'
Under the current system that would be changed, the impact of insurance reimbursement against a doctor's charges could not be introduced.
But with the shift, Cash said, juries will 'get to hear both numbers now, so they get to hear the big number (offered by plaintiffs) but they still hear the number of what is actually necessary to satisfy those charges,' Cash said.
He added that he preferred the term 'truth and damages' rather than 'phantom damages.'
One unintended consequence of the law, Cash said, is that it may be preferable from a trial lawyer's perspective if a client has no health insurance. The offsetting impact of insurance payment by definition couldn't come in to play. Cash added that SB 86 is silent on handling that situation.
Other parts of SB86 discussed by Cash and by attorneys in their online commentaries include these provisions:
The 'anchoring' of non-economic damages: Cash cited where an attorney might make an argument along the lines of 'if LeBron James makes this much money, is the client's suffering worth less than that?' As Kennedys said in its commentary, 'this tactic can introduce arbitrary inflated figures that influence juries and contribute to nuclear verdicts.' Under the new law, if that sort of figure isn't discussed earlier in the testimony, it can't suddenly be introduced during a closing argument.
Non-bifurcated trial:The current system could involve three steps, Cash said: the actual trial, apportionment of the damages, and then deciding what the damages should be. Each step could involve the same testimony heard multiple times. Bifurcation, according to the Kennedys law firm, would involve just two phases. But it is not mandated; it is an option that can be requested by either party.
The companion legislation, SB87, does not make illegal the practice of outsiders funding lawsuits.
The law goes into effect January 1, which Cash said would give those funding entities time to comply with what he said were 'onerous:' registration requirements.
'It has the goal of increasing transparency around third party litigation financing and trying to lift back the veil over some of these agreements which we've known existed for a long time,' Cash said. Some judges in the past would require such disclosure, he added, but it was not unanimous.
The registration rules are 'not simply a rubber stamp,' Cash said. 'There are some very serious registration requirements that they have to complete.'
More articles by John Kingston
California deal with 16 states would end key parts of Advanced Clean Fleets rule
New Jersey, feds take opposite paths on independent contractor rules
State of Freight takeaways: Freight crash may turn into sudden revival
The post Georgia tort reform aims to change practices in judicial 'hell hole' appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe
Dozens of states have filed a joint lawsuit against the bankrupt DNA-testing company 23andMe to block the company's sale of its customers' genetic data without explicit consent. The suit, filed this week in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, comes months after 23andMe began a court-supervised sale process of its assets. The South San Francisco-based venture was once valued at $6 billion and has collected DNA samples from more than 15 million customers. The company's bankruptcy has raised questions over privacy standards for genetic data, which experts say is uniquely sensitive, immutable and irreplaceable if stolen. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia filed the lawsuit, arguing that 23andMe customers have an inherent right to their own genetic information. Read more: 'People should be worried': 23andMe bankruptcy could expose customers' genetic data 'This isn't just data — it's your DNA," said Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield in a statement. "It's personal, permanent, and deeply private. People did not submit their personal data to 23andMe thinking their genetic blueprint would later be sold off to the highest bidder." 23andMe announced in May that it would be sold to New York-based drug maker Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which had agreed to comply with 23andMe's existing privacy policy. However, a competing offer from nonprofit TTAM Research Institute led the bankruptcy judge to reopen the auction last week. TTAM is run by 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki, who has made several failed attempts to take the company private. In a statement, a 23andMe spokesperson said the lawsuit's claims "are without merit" and that the sale of genetic data does not violate privacy regulations. 'Customers will continue to have the same rights and protections in the hands of the winning bidder," the spokesperson said. Read more: Congressmen sound alarm over data privacy following 23andMe bankruptcy 23andMe customers have the right to delete their genetic information from the company's database at any time, as outlined in the Genetic Information Privacy Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act. During a testimony in Washington earlier this week, 23andMe interim Chief Executive Joseph Selsavage said that 1.9 million customers have requested their data be deleted since the company's bankruptcy filing in March. Sara Geoghegan, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that 23andMe's privacy policy was subject to change and not adequate to protect customers' data. In an interview in March, she stressed the sensitivity of genetic data. 'I would be very concerned if I had given a swab to 23andMe," she said. "There is little we can do to control what happens to it." Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


Boston Globe
37 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
MassDOT taps Irish firm Applegreen to redevelop 18 highway service plazas
Applegreen would completely replace buildings at nine of the 18 service plazas, and make significant retrofits to the others. In total, Applegreen has pledged to make $750 million in capital improvements over the life of the contract. The company also would share a portion of the revenue it earns at these plazas with the state, totaling at least $28.4 million a year on average over the contract term — or nearly $1 billion that would go to the state over time. MassDOT chief development officer Scott Bosworth told the board members that Applegreen would also improve traffic flow at many of the rest stops. One goal is to reduce conflicts between truckers and car drivers as part of reconfigurations that will add nearly 500 new spaces across the rest areas, a 24 percent increase. Advertisement 'They have demonstrated real-world experience in turning over these facilities, and state-of-the-art revitalization programs,' Bosworth said of Applegreen. 'We feel we've got a strong partner, we're excited about this partnership [and] we're on the cusp of beginning a new day for our service plazas in Massachusetts.' Advertisement The contract, which has a 10-year extension option, will take effect on Jan. 1, 2026 for 14 of the 18 service areas: the 11 on the turnpike, plus rest areas in Lexington, Newton, and Plymouth; Applegreen is slated to replace McDonald's as the food concessionaire and Gulf for the fuel. The contract for the other four plazas — currently operated by Waltham-based petroleum supplier Global Partners in Bridgewater, Barnstable, and Beverly — will switch over on June 30, 2027. There isn't much time to make the transition, with leases expiring in six months on most of the plazas. Applegreen was picked in part because of its readiness to get started with the extensive permitting and construction work necessary. Its team includes general contractor Suffolk Construction and designers at Upland Architects. Active in the US since 2014, Applegreen has been expanding in this country lately, fueled in large part by Blackstone after the private equity firm acquired a controlling stake in 2021. Applegreen is wrapping up a 27-area redevelopment in New York; Bosworth said the Applegreen team that's leading the New York project will move over to Massachusetts. An Applegreen spokesperson offered a brief statement when asked about the committee's vote on Wednesday: 'We're proud of our proposal, and hope to have the opportunity to work with the state and MassDOT to improve the travel experiences of drivers across Massachusetts.' MassDOT's procurement process has been shrouded in secrecy until now — a fact that irked Quincy Mayor Tom Koch, a MassDOT board member. 'I'm disappointed I didn't have more information ahead of time,' Koch said. 'This is a big vote. I just think we're just kind of glossing over ... a major vote of this board.' Advertisement Bosworth told Koch that he would have preferred to share more information but was advised by MassDOT legal counsel to limit the public information on the process while the procurement was still ongoing. At Wednesday's meeting, Bosworth disclosed that six companies had made initial bids for the service-plaza contract last fall: Love's Travel Stops, 7-Eleven, Applegreen, Gulf owner RaceTrac, Global, and fuel distributor Energy North. Among other things, MassDOT's original bidding documents called for Applegreen has promised to keep operating bathroom and gas services at the rest areas while they are under construction, Bosworth said, and to not shut down two consecutive plaza buildings along the turnpike at the same time. Susan Snyder, a top lawyer at MassDOT, told the planning committee that the state faces a big financial risk if a new operator isn't chosen soon. Six months, she said, is the minimum amount of time necessary to transition to a new rest stop operator, and MassDOT wouldn't have much leverage if negotiations were needed to extend the leases beyond Jan. 1. 'There's just a ton of work that has to be done,' Bosworth said. 'Having said that, we have selected an operator that has proven they can do it under the gun.' Advertisement Jon Chesto can be reached at
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign sues over Musk election payments
Tesla CEO Elon Musk listens as President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is suing billionaire Elon Musk over allegations that he violated multiple state laws, including the election bribery statute, when he offered voters a potential $1 million award for signing a petition as part of his effort to sway the result of Wisconsin's April Supreme Court election. Represented by Wisconsin's Law Forward, Democracy Defenders Fund and New York-based law firm Hecker Fink, the lawsuit accuses the world's richest man of implementing 'a brazen scheme to bribe Wisconsin citizens to vote.' Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, played a major role in this spring's election becoming the most expensive judicial campaign in American history. Musk's involvement in the race, which came as he was leading President Donald Trump's cost-cutting initiatives and firing thousands of federal employees through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was widely seen as causing a backlash and helping Dane County Judge Susan Crawford defeat Musk-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel. Musk and his PAC spent more than $20 million on the race. Prior to the election, America PAC offered voters $100 if they signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges,' and another $100 if they referred another voter to sign the petition. Later, at a pre-election rally in Green Bay, Musk handed out two $1 million checks to voters, which had been advertised as awards 'in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.' The lawsuit, filed in Dane County court, notes it is against the law to offer anyone more than $1 to induce them to go to the polls, vote or vote for a particular candidate. 'By offering and paying Wisconsin citizens amounts far greater than $1 to vote, Defendants violated Wisconsin's election bribery law,' the lawsuit states. 'Defendants' payments and offers of payment to Wisconsin voters, made with the clear intent to aid one candidate and induce Wisconsinites to vote, threatened the integrity of the election and damaged public confidence in the electoral system.' Jeff Mandell, Law Forward's general counsel, said the lawsuit was meant to prevent efforts like Musk's from becoming a regular occurrence. 'We are fighting for free and fair elections,' Mandell said. 'We believe our democracy demands better than schemes like the one detailed in our complaint. So, we are working to hold Musk accountable and stop this from becoming the new normal.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX