Fault-Based vs. Comparative Fault Laws in Georgia: What You Need to Know

Getting to the bottom of who is at fault for a personal injury case in Georgia can be complex. Not only is there a process for identifying the at-fault party, but the state has also adopted different legal standards that must be taken into account. Two of those are the at-fault system of compensation and comparative fault laws.

“At-fault” states allow drivers to file a lawsuit against another party when they are responsible for causing an accident, while some jurisdictions instead take a “No-fault” approach. Georgia has also adopted a comparative fault standard, which is used in cases where the injured party is partially to blame. The following guide outlines these concepts and provides examples of how they work.

Georgia is an “At-Fault” State

There are two different ways that states approach paying for the losses associated with a motor vehicle accident. Georgia takes the more popular approach of the two, making it an “at-fault” state.

At-fault negligence rules give an injury victim the opportunity to file a lawsuit against the driver who caused the crash. Their primary source of compensation in these situations is the at-fault driver. This might include their personal assets, although the law requires motorists to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance just for this situation.

In an at-fault state like Georgia, you have the right to file a civil lawsuit against those responsible. This often includes multiple defendants who share responsibility for the accident. A plaintiff has the right to seek damages from one or both of these parties, as they are jointly liable for the damage they caused.

There are some downsides that come with the at-fault approach. Because this process is inherently litigious, the odds of a contentious dispute are much greater. This means it can take substantially longer to resolve an injury claim in an at-fault state.

There is also the fact that the other side is entitled to mount a defense. If the defendant prevails at trial, you will not be entitled to recover any damages in these cases.

Because of the higher chance of legal action, it is crucial to have the support of a skilled attorney in an at-fault state like Georgia. Before you attempt to resolve your case alone, reach out to our firm to learn how we can help.

Examples of No-Fault Insurance Rules

The vast majority of states—including Georgia—take the at-fault approach to personal injury lawsuits. When motorists are hurt in a crash in no-fault states, the options for compensation are very different. In total, there are 12 no-fault states, including:

• Florida
• Hawaii
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Utah

In each of these states, motorists are required to carry something known as personal injury protection (PIP) insurance. When accidents happen, injury victims are generally required to seek compensation through their own insurance policy instead of suing the other driver.

This might not sound bad on paper, but there are major downsides to relying on PIP coverage compared to a personal injury lawsuit. These policies typically provide for only a portion of your lost wages after an accident, and they do not pay out non-economic losses like pain and suffering at all.

The good news for those living in no-fault states is that there are often exceptions that allow drivers to step outside of the system and pursue a personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault party. What’s more, these rules only apply to collisions involving four-wheeled vehicles like cars or trucks. Anyone injured in a motorcycle accident is not restricted by the no-fault system.

What is Modified Comparative Fault?

When it comes to cases where multiple parties may be liable for an injury, Georgia uses a legal standard known as modified comparative negligence. Different variations of this rule are the most common approach to shared fault throughout the United States.

Under a modified comparative fault rule, an injured person is not automatically barred from recovering compensation following an accident just because they were partially at fault. What matters under this standard is the plaintiff’s degree of fault.

While there are different approaches to a modified comparative fault, Georgia operates under something known as the Modified Comparative 50% Bar Rule. Under this rule, you have the right to pursue a personal injury lawsuit as long as you are not more than 50 percent at fault for the accident. Other states have a 51% rule, which means a plaintiff can seek damages if they are not more than 50 percent at fault.

It is important to note that bearing partial responsibility for your injuries can impact your recovery, even if you are not barred from securing damages entirely. The courts are required to reduce your award by the degree of your fault. For example, if you are 25 percent liable for your own injuries, your total recovery will be reduced by 25 percent.

Example of Georgia’s Modified Comparative Fault Rules

Consider the following example: a motorist on their way to work is involved in an accident with another driver and suffers serious injuries. The driver was traveling a few miles per hour above the speed limit but was otherwise complying with all traffic laws. As they lawfully enter an intersection, the other driver runs a red light and collides with the side of their vehicle. The injured party files a negligence lawsuit seeking compensation for their injuries, but the other driver alleges that the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages because of their own degree of fault.

In this case, the jury determines that the total amount of the plaintiff’s damages equals $100,000. Their next job is to decide the degree of fault for the two parties involved in the lawsuit. The jury determined that the plaintiff’s speeding made them 10 percent responsible for the accident, while the defendant was 90 percent to blame because they ran the red light.

Because of their shared fault, the plaintiff’s recovery must be reduced by 10 percent. That means they are entitled to an award of $90,000, which is 90 percent of their total losses. If the jury had determined the plaintiff was 51 percent at fault, they would not have been eligible for any compensation.

What are the Alternatives to Comparative Fault Laws?

Comparative fault rules make up the vast majority of negligence laws throughout the United States, but there are states that take a different approach. They include one option that is fairly common and another that is only used in a handful of states. These options are known as pure comparative fault and contributory negligence.

Pure Comparative Fault

The least restrictive approach to shared fault laws is known as pure comparative fault. Like modified comparative negligence, this approach does not bar someone from recovering damages because they are partially to blame for an accident. Where pure comparative fault differs is that there is no degree of fault that will prevent a plaintiff from pursuing legal action. Someone that is 99 percent liable can still seek damages from the other party. That said, their recovery will be, at most, one percent of their total losses. There is also the possibility of the other party filing a lawsuit of their own.

Contributory Negligence

The vast majority of states have adopted comparative fault rules over the years. However, four states and the District of Columbia continue to follow the traditional approach, which is known as contributory negligence. Under contributory negligence, a plaintiff is barred from recovering any award at all if they share in the fault for their injuries in any way. In theory, a plaintiff who is only one percent liable is prohibited from recovering a monetary award in their case. Because of the unforgiving nature of this system, most states have changed their approach. Outside of Washington, D.C., the only jurisdictions that still practice contributory negligence are Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.

How is Fault Determined Under Georgia Law

When considering questions of comparative fault, it is helpful to understand how a court in Georgia might determine who is to blame for an accident in the first place. No matter what rules a state uses for identifying the comparative fault, juries will typically evaluate the evidence and assign parties with a percentage of liability. To establish the degree of fault for the other driver, your car accident lawyer can rely on different types of evidence.

Recovered Evidence

Any piece of evidence that better helps a jury understand what happened during a crash could be invaluable at trial. This often starts with photographs, either of the scene of the collision or of the vehicles themselves. While pictures are helpful, video of the accident as it happened is often the most substantial possible evidence. You might be able to secure this evidence through the use of a dashboard camera or security camera footage.

Witness Testimony

The testimony of witnesses can also play a big part in how a judge or jury determines fault in a personal injury case. This can include testimony from the parties involved in the lawsuit or neutral individuals without any connection to the plaintiff or the defendant. Juries will generally give more weight to the testimony of witnesses who do not have any bias toward the parties.

Hiring Experts

In some cases, the use of expert testimony could make or break your case for compensation. There are different types of expert witnesses, including those trained to reconstruct accidents based on photographs and forensic details at the scene of the collision. Medical experts might also be needed to show a jury the extent of a plaintiff’s pain and suffering. There are special rules for calling these witnesses at trial, and your Atlanta personal injury attorney could advise you on when their help may be necessary.

How Insurance Adjusters Make Fault Determinations

The use of evidence is important at trial, but many accident claims are resolved long before legal action is necessary. Insurance companies and their adjusters will perform their own investigations and often agree that their driver was ultimately at fault. The way they reach this conclusion is different compared to an injury lawsuit since the rules of evidence used in court do not apply.

An insurance adjuster’s primary responsibility is to assess the circumstances of the accident and determine if the company is required to pay out a claim. Adjusters act on behalf of their insurance company, which means their goal is to minimize the insurer’s liability as much as possible. These adjusters might be pleasant, but it is helpful to remember they are not on your side.

The process begins with an investigation of the accident. Adjusters key evidence, usually starting with the police reports. These reports are not admissible in a court proceeding, but they are often the building block of an adjuster’s decision.

Insurance adjusters might use other details, including statements from their drivers, witness testimony, or the use of experts. Using this information, the adjuster will ultimately determine whether the insurance company is required to pay for the plaintiff’s damages or not.

Speak with an Atlanta Personal Injury Attorney at Mabra Law About Your Accident Right Away

Understanding the differences between Georgia’s at-fault system and its comparative fault rules is only the first step towards seeking compensation following a car accident. You have the right to pursue your injury claim, but getting the fair outcome you deserve is not always easy. This is especially true when you attempt to settle your case alone. At Mabra Law, we understand what goes into a winning car accident injury case. We can work within Georgia’s legal system to help you maximize your compensation. Acting as your own attorney will only put your case at risk. Let our team help you aggressively pursue damages from those who caused your accident. Contact us as soon as possible to discuss your options during a free consultation with our dedicated attorneys.