Georgia’s Tort Reform: A Blow to the Injured

Governor Brian Kemp’s recent push for tort reform in Georgia has culminated in the passage of Senate Bill 68 (SB 68), a legislative measure that significantly alters the state’s civil justice landscape. While proponents argue that this bill aims to curb frivolous lawsuits and stabilize insurance rates, a closer examination from the plaintiff’s perspective reveals several concerning implications for Georgians seeking justice.

Heightened Burden of Proof for Plaintiffs

One of the most contentious aspects of SB 68 is the increased burden placed on individuals who suffer injuries or misconduct on business properties. Under the new law, to hold a business or property owner liable, plaintiffs must now demonstrate that the owner was aware of a specific security risk and that a physical condition on the property created that risk, yet failed to provide adequate security measures. This stringent requirement makes it exceedingly challenging for victims to seek redress, particularly in cases involving unforeseen criminal acts. Critics argue that such provisions effectively shield negligent property owners from accountability, thereby denying justice to victims.

Impediments to Justice for Abuse and Violence Victims

The bill has faced significant opposition from survivors of abuse, sex trafficking, and violence. These individuals have voiced concerns that SB 68 would obstruct their ability to pursue legitimate claims against entities that failed to protect them. Despite revisions intended to address these concerns, many advocates remain skeptical about the bill’s efficacy in safeguarding victims’ rights. The heightened requirements for proving liability could deter victims from coming forward, thereby perpetuating a cycle of injustice.

Questionable Impact on Insurance Premiums

Supporters of SB 68 assert that limiting lawsuits will lead to reduced insurance premiums for businesses and consumers. However, empirical evidence supporting this claim is mixed. Some studies suggest that tort reform primarily benefits insurance companies’ profit margins rather than translating into substantial savings for policyholders. Consequently, the anticipated reduction in insurance costs may not materialize, leaving consumers without the projected financial relief.

Potential Erosion of Consumer Protections

Beyond the immediate implications for plaintiffs, SB 68 may have broader consequences for consumer rights in Georgia. By imposing stricter standards for legal claims, the bill could dissuade individuals from pursuing valid lawsuits due to the increased complexity and uncertainty of success. This deterrent effect undermines the foundational principle of holding negligent parties accountable and may embolden businesses to neglect necessary safety measures, knowing the legal hurdles victims must overcome.

Conclusion

While the intent behind SB 68 may be to foster a more business-friendly environment in Georgia, it is imperative to consider the adverse effects on individuals’ access to justice. The heightened burden of proof, potential barriers for abuse victims, dubious impact on insurance premiums, and erosion of consumer protections collectively paint a concerning picture. As these reforms take effect, vigilant monitoring is essential to ensure that the scales of justice do not tip disproportionately against those seeking rightful redress.

We continue to learn about this bill and will continue to post about its implementation and the impact it has on injury victims.