On March 21, 2025, Georgia Senate Bill 68 (SB 68), Governor Brian Kemp’s tort reform legislation SB 68 was passed in the Georgia Senate by a margin of 34-21. Tort reform was a signature piece of legislation for the Kemp administration, which took the side of small business owners in the state frustrated over paying large personal injury settlements in lawsuits they feel are frivolous.
But now that it has been signed into law, legal experts and advocates warn: SB 68 could make it significantly harder for injured victims to hold wrongdoers accountable — and get the compensation they need to rebuild their lives.
SB 68 Will Make It More Difficult to Prove Negligent Security Cases
One of the most controversial aspects of the law is that it will impose more stringent requirements for evidence of negligent security. Plaintiffs will need to demonstrate that property owners had actual, specific knowledge of a likely criminal act—not just general knowledge of area crime. This standard raises the bar significantly, making it harder to establish negligence.
This new law may shield businesses and landlords from liability in many foreseeable crime situations, even when inadequate security measures may have directly contributed to the victim’s harm.
Besides making it significantly harder to hold property owners accountable for failing to provide reasonable security, SB 68 could undermine the incentive for property owners to prioritize the safety and well-being of their tenants and patrons. And a shift away from holding them legally responsible could ultimately lead to a decline in security measures and an increase in preventable crimes, especially in areas with potentially higher crime rates.
SB 68 Will Lower Recoverable Medical Expenses
SB 68 will also require personal injury plaintiffs to show jurors only the “actual medical costs” paid by insurance companies, rather than the initial billed amounts. This may result in victims being undercompensated for essential medical care. This disproportionately benefits the defense by anchoring damage awards to reduced insurance reimbursements rather than the true cost or value of care.
Instead of the amount billed by providers, jurors will only see the amount paid by insurance—which is often deeply discounted.
That means juries won’t see the true value of treatment, potentially leading them to underestimate the seriousness of the injury or award less compensation than what’s needed to pay for future care.
“By passing SB 68, the legislature has made it harder — not fairer — for victims to seek justice. We will continue to advocate for their rights and pursue the highest dollar amounts possible under the law, despite this change.” – Attorney Nikki Montlick
SB 68 Will Mandate the Separation of Trials into Two Distinct Phases (Bifurcation)
SB 68 allows courts to bifurcate trials upon request—this is not always automatic, but will become significantly easier for defendants to obtain. Bifurcating the trial separates the determination of liability from the determination of damages. In the first trial, the jury would only consider evidence related to the defendant’s responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries, excluding details about the extent of those injuries. If liability is established, a second, separate trial would then occur to determine the amount of compensation owed to the plaintiff, at which point evidence of damages would be presented.
This process can double the length and complexity of a case. Victims may have to testify twice, pay for more expert testimony, and wait longer for a resolution. The litigation process could also be significantly prolonged due to the scheduling and conducting of two separate trials, potentially leading to higher legal costs.
Critics are also concerned that separating the trial into two parts could lead to juries reaching different and contradictory conclusions about fault and damages. They also point out that defendants with more money can better handle the longer and more costly trial process, giving them an unfair advantage. Furthermore, presenting liability in isolation may prevent jurors in the first phase from fully understanding the human impact of the defendant’s actions. Critics warn it gives an unfair edge to defendants by making it harder for juries to see the full impact of what the victim has gone through by showing a less empathetic presentation of their case.
SB 68 Will Make Non-usage of Seatbelts Admissible in Court
Previously under Georgia law, the fact that a plaintiff in a car accident was not wearing a seatbelt was inadmissible as evidence. SB 68 will overturn this, allowing a defense attorney to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt. This shift may enable the defense to argue that the plaintiff’s injuries were exacerbated by their own negligence in not using a seatbelt, potentially reducing the amount of compensation they can recover from the at-fault driver.
Some opponents of SB 68 claim that this is a way for insurance companies to shift blame away from drivers who caused the accident and onto the injured victims. By focusing on the plaintiff’s seatbelt usage, the defense can attempt to diminish the financial responsibility of the negligent party. Critics argue that this unfairly penalizes victims, especially when the primary cause of the accident remains the fault of the other driver. The potential outcome is a reduction in the financial recovery for injured individuals, even when another party’s negligence was the direct cause of the collision.
Procedural Changes That May Impact Plaintiffs
It’s also possible that Georgia’s SB 68 may cause significant delays in lawsuits. The bill would allow defendants, especially well-funded ones like insurance companies, to halt cases by filing motions, even if those motions lack strong grounds. This tactic could stall proceedings, delaying compensation for injured victims and increasing their financial pressure. Critics believe this would unfairly benefit defendants who can afford to prolong the legal battle, potentially forcing victims to accept lower settlements to get relief sooner. They argue it undermines timely justice for those who have been harmed.
The law may also make it harder for plaintiffs to dismiss their case and then start it again later under certain circumstances. This could trap plaintiffs in a legal process that isn’t working for them and limit their options for seeking justice.
Who Will Benefit from SB 68?
Proponents of the bill claim that it will save businesses and consumers by limiting the monetary damages that can be awarded to plaintiffs in personal injury cases, potentially reducing the incentive for individuals to file negligent security lawsuits. And this may benefit Georgia businesses, especially small ones, by possibly decreasing the frequency of these types of claims.
But will reducing excessive damage awards ultimately lower skyrocketing insurance prices in Georgia? Opponents suggest that the evidence linking tort reform directly to decreases in insurance prices is weak or inconclusive. They argue that insurance rates are primarily driven by a multitude of factors and that any savings from tort reform might be absorbed by insurance companies rather than passed on to business owners.
How can personal injury victims ensure that this legislation doesn’t leave them victimized a second time? It’s now more important than ever to hire an attorney who will be able to contend with the challenges posed by SB 68 and recover the damages you may be owed. With 40 years of experience advocating and securing justice for victims of injury in Georgia, Montlick Injury Attorneys has the experience and know-how to fight for your case and the compensation that you deserve.
