Georgia House of Representatives Approve Contentious Tort Reform Legislation

In a narrow decision, the state House of Representatives, which is currently under Republican leadership, pushed through what the GOP views as crucial tort reform legislation this past Thursday. The Democratic opposition was unable to halt its passing, arguing vehemently that the bill would both restrict the public’s access to the judiciary and was quite simply, not required. The bill, Senate Bill 68, managed 91 votes in favour to 82 against, hitting the required minimum for such legislation to pass in a House made up of 180 members. A notable feature of the vote was the crossing of party lines, with select Democrats endorsing the bill, and certain Republicans in opposition.

The Senate waved the bill through last month, a voting pattern where members mostly stuck to their party line was evident. Tort reform has been placed at the top of the legislative agenda by Governor Brian Kemp for this year’s session. Following the result, House Speaker Jon Burns, a Republican from Newington, expressed his hope that the recent voting was a decisive move towards much-needed renovations in Georgia’s climate of litigation.

Speaker Burns went on to state that Senate Bill 68, with its practical solutions, not only safeguards the rights of those at the receiving end of harm but also ensures balance and justice within courtrooms. He concluded by stating his team’s eagerness to join hands with the Senate to facilitate this essential lawsuit reform and ensure its successful implementation.

The bill is made up of ten sections, including guidelines on ‘premises liability’ which determine the circumstances under which injured plaintiffs can file a suit against business proprietors. The instances in question include injuries suffered due to crimes committed by third parties that are beyond the control of the business owner. Other provisions are also included in the legislation.

Defence lawyers now have the opportunity to present as part of their evidence whether a plaintiff, who suffers damage in a car accident, was using a seatbelt. Yet another feature mandates plaintiffs to sue for economic damages limited specifically to their actual medical expenses. To Representative Chas Cannon, a Republican from Moultrie, such reforms are crucial for the civil justice system in Georgia.

Representative Cannon explains that several jury awards have been exaggeratedly high, leading to an increase in the premium of liability insurance which negatively impacts the profitability of businesses. He argued that reducing groundless lawsuits and excessively high jury awards would stabilize insurance costs thus fostering business growth.

This stabilization of insurance costs, he says, would unleash an environment where businesses flourish, leading to additional job creation. However, this viewpoint was not universally shared. Representative Al Williams, Democrat from Midway, contradicted this view.

Representative Williams expressed that none of his potential business tenant recruits had ever objected to high insurance premiums. This is despite Georgia being tagged as the primary ‘judicial hellhole’ by the American Tort Reform Association, owing to its status having the worst environment for tort claims.

The proposed bill’s effect on insurance premiums was not only debated by Rep. Williams. Rep. Shea Roberts, a Democrat from Atlanta, also expressed doubts over the supposed guaranteed impact of the bill on insurance premium costs. Additionally, the House made some modifications to the version of this bill that came from the Senate, adjustments that resulted from over dozen hours of testimony.

One particular change aimed to ensure that victims of sex trafficking would not see their rights to file lawsuits affected by the new law. This amendment, however, drew the attention of Representative Stacey Evans, Democrat from Atlanta. She pointed out the specific provision, which in her view, differentiates between victims of sex trafficking and victims of other sex offenses.

She raised questions about the deviation, asking why other crime victims would not be allowed a similar path for damage recovery. Her concern was promptly countered by House Majority Whip James Burchett, a Republican from Waycross, who disagreed with her interpretation and its potential impact on victims of rape.

Rep. Burchett rebutted that the bill does not contain any language that prevents a rape victim from pursuing a claim. Following this discourse, Rep. Rob Leverett, a Republican from Elberton who happens to be the subcommittee chair that took testimony on the bill, decided to weigh in.

Rep. Leverett asserted that the bill would ensure fairness for both victims and business owners, assuaging fears that victims’ rights may be compromised. Citing public sentiment, Rep. Leverett pointed out that serious problems had been reported by people in the state.

Following the deliberations in the House, the bill is set to return to the Senate for a review of the changes proposed by the House. The Senate’s feedback on these alterations will play a vital role in steering the course of the legislation.