How Juries Assess Liability in Georgia Car Accident Trials

A jury trial is the final mechanism for resolving a Georgia car accident dispute when settlement and mediation fail. How jurors are selected, how evidence reaches them, how Senate Bill 68’s bifurcation option reshapes the trial’s structure, and how a verdict can be challenged afterward together describe what going to trial actually involves. None of these features operates the way popular impressions of trials suggest, and one in particular, the verdict requirement, is frequently misstated.

Georgia Civil Jury Basics

A civil jury in Georgia superior court is composed of twelve jurors. State-court juries may be six or twelve depending on the case. Contrary to a common misconception, a Georgia civil verdict requires unanimity; it is not reached by a three-fourths or supermajority vote. Every juror must agree before a verdict is returned, and a poll revealing disagreement results in the jury being directed to deliberate further. The statute sometimes invoked for a supermajority figure, OCGA 9-10-5, does not govern the verdict at all; it concerns whether the judge’s charges to the jury are reduced to writing on request. Because the verdict must be unanimous, neither side can rely on persuading only a portion of the panel.

Voir Dire: Jury Selection

Georgia permits attorney-conducted voir dire, meaning the attorneys, not only the judge, may question prospective jurors directly about their backgrounds, experiences, and attitudes relevant to the case. Each side receives peremptory strikes, which remove jurors without a stated reason, and challenges for cause, which remove jurors who show actual bias. In car accident cases the questioning tends to focus on jurors with strong pre-existing views about lawsuits, on either side; jurors with personal experience of accidents or insurance claims; jurors with medical backgrounds who may evaluate injury evidence independently; and jurors whose circumstances might generate sympathy or hostility toward a party.

Bifurcation Under SB 68

Senate Bill 68, effective April 21, 2025, introduced a bifurcation right codified at OCGA 51-12-15. Either party may demand a bifurcated trial by written demand before the pretrial order, separating the liability phase from the damages phase before the same jury. Two exceptions allow a court to deny the demand: where the amount in controversy is less than $150,000, or where the victim of a sexual offense would suffer significant distress from testifying twice. Unlike the medical-damages and seatbelt provisions of SB 68, which are tied to the accident or filing date, bifurcation applies to all pending and future cases regardless of when the injury occurred.

In the liability phase, the jury decides who was at fault and assigns fault percentages to each party, including the plaintiff, every defendant, and any nonparty whose conduct is at issue under Georgia’s apportionment statute, OCGA 51-12-33. Evidence in this phase is confined to liability, so the jury does not hear about injury severity, medical-bill amounts, pain and suffering, or family impact. The separation is intended to keep emotionally weighty damages evidence from influencing the fault determination. If the liability phase produces a finding against the defendant, the damages phase follows, in which the jury hears medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and other compensatory items and returns a total, which the court then reduces by the plaintiff’s comparative-fault percentage. Where punitive damages were pled, a further phase considers the defendant’s conduct and the appropriate level of punishment, and it proceeds only if the earlier phases favored the plaintiff, because Georgia requires an award of compensatory damages as a prerequisite to punitive damages. How the $150,000 threshold is measured, whether by the amount claimed or the court’s assessment of likely damages, is a question Georgia courts continue to interpret as SB 68 case law develops.

How Juries Weigh Conflicting Evidence

When both sides present plausible, evidence-backed accounts, the jury’s task is credibility assessment. Jurors weigh which witnesses are more consistent, more detailed, and better corroborated; they assess demeanor, consistency with prior statements and records, corroboration by physical evidence or documents, and, for experts, the strength of credentials and soundness of methodology. When opposing experts reach contrary conclusions, the jury effectively chooses between competing professional opinions, and the expert with clearer methodology, more thorough analysis, and steadier composure under cross-examination tends to prevail. The quality of an expert often matters as much as the content of the opinion.

Illustration: How Comparative Fault Adjusts a Damages Finding

The following figures are illustrative arithmetic only and predict no outcome in any case. Suppose, after a bifurcated trial, the liability phase assigns the plaintiff 20% of the fault and the defendant 80%, and the damages phase returns a total compensatory figure of $100,000. Under OCGA 51-12-33, the court reduces the award by the plaintiff’s fault percentage, producing $80,000. Had the plaintiff’s share instead reached 50% or more, the modified comparative-negligence bar would eliminate recovery entirely. The arithmetic shows how the two phases interact, not a predicted result in any matter.

Post-Verdict Challenges

A verdict is not always the final word. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted only where no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict on the evidence, a very high standard that rarely succeeds. A motion for new trial may be granted for errors of law, newly discovered evidence that could not have been found earlier, or a damages award so excessive or inadequate that it shocks the conscience, and it is granted more often than judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Remittitur allows a court to reduce an excessive award rather than order a new trial; where the punitive-damages cap applies and no exception was triggered, the punitive award is reduced to the $250,000 ceiling set by OCGA 51-12-5.1(g). On appeal, either party may take legal questions to the Georgia Court of Appeals or, in some cases, the Georgia Supreme Court; appeals address errors of law and do not re-weigh the evidence or substitute appellate judgment on factual questions. How fault percentages reduce recovery is addressed in the discussion of comparative negligence, and the punitive-damages standard is addressed in the discussion of when punitive damages are awarded.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a Georgia civil verdict require all twelve jurors to agree? Yes. A civil verdict in Georgia requires unanimity. It is not reached by a three-fourths or other supermajority vote, and a poll showing disagreement sends the jury back to deliberate.

What does OCGA 9-10-5 actually govern? It governs whether the judge’s charges to the jury are written out on request, not the size of the majority needed for a verdict.

When can a party demand a bifurcated trial under SB 68? Either party may demand bifurcation by written demand before the pretrial order under OCGA 51-12-15, subject to exceptions where the amount in controversy is under $150,000 or where a sexual-offense victim would suffer significant distress from testifying twice.

Can a jury’s award be reduced after trial? Yes. Through remittitur a court may reduce an excessive award, and where the punitive cap applies the punitive portion is reduced to $250,000 under OCGA 51-12-5.1(g). A new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict may also be available in limited circumstances.

Sources and Legal Authorities

• Unanimity requirement for Georgia civil verdicts (Georgia Constitution and statutes; twelve-juror superior-court panel)
• OCGA 9-10-5 (written jury charges on request)
• OCGA 51-12-15 (bifurcation; SB 68, retroactive; $150,000 and sexual-offense exceptions)
• OCGA 51-12-33 (modified comparative negligence and apportionment; 50%-or-more bar)
• OCGA 51-12-5.1(g) (punitive-damages cap, $250,000)
• Senate Bill 68 (Georgia 2025), effective April 21, 2025
• Georgia Civil Practice Act (jury-trial procedure)

Disclaimer

This guide provides general legal information about civil jury trials in Georgia car accident cases as of 2026. It is educational, is not legal advice, and is not provided by a law firm. Trial procedure and the interpretation of SB 68 continue to develop. Anyone seeking advice about a particular situation should consult a licensed Georgia attorney.