If your Georgia injury case goes to trial now, it won’t look like the old TV‑style courtroom drama. Senate Bill 68 (SB 68), the 2025 tort‑reform law, changed what lawyers can say about pain and suffering and how trials are structured so juries focus more on fault and less on big, speculative numbers.
Pain and suffering before SB 68
Before SB 68, Georgia lawyers had broad freedom to talk about the “value” of pain and suffering in dollars. Plaintiff attorneys could throw out big lump‑sum figures or use per‑diem arguments like “What is one day of this pain worth? Multiply that by the rest of this person’s life.”
Those techniques anchored juries around high numbers. Even when medical bills and lost wages were modest, the suggested pain‑and‑suffering figure could drive the overall verdict.
What SB 68 changed
SB 68 tightened the rules on how lawyers can argue pain and suffering. It largely cuts off the most aggressive anchoring tactics—huge per‑diem formulas and eye‑popping dollar suggestions whose main purpose is to push the verdict up.
Lawyers can still explain:
What pain and suffering means.
How the injury affects work, family, sleep, hobbies, and everyday activities.
Why those losses deserve meaningful compensation.
What they’re expected to avoid is turning non‑economic damages into a math exercise built around a single, inflated number. The jury is supposed to listen to the story and then choose a fair figure on its own.
For an injured person, that means your lawyer’s closing will sound more like “here’s how this changed my client’s life” and less like “here’s the exact dollar amount you should plug into your verdict form.”
Bifurcated trials: splitting fault and damages
SB 68 also changes how many injury and wrongful‑death trials are structured. It lets either side ask the court to split the trial into phases—usually one for liability (fault) and one for damages.
In a bifurcated trial, the jury typically hears:
Phase one: How the crash or incident happened, what each party did or failed to do, and whether the plaintiff was partly at fault. The jury decides who is responsible and in what percentages.
Phase two: Only after fault is decided does the jury hear detailed evidence about medical bills, future care, lost wages, and pain and suffering, and then set the dollar amount.
If the jury finds no liability in phase one, the case can end there without a damages phase. That’s one of the reasons defendants often like the new structure.
Why split the trial?
The idea is to separate “Did the defendant do something wrong?” from “How much money should we award?” Supporters say this:
Helps jurors focus on facts and legal duties when deciding fault.
Reduces the chance that sympathy over injuries will bleed into the liability decision.
Can shorten trials and cut off large awards when the liability evidence is weak.
For plaintiffs, bifurcation can help when the defendant’s conduct is clearly bad; you don’t need the injury story to win fault. But it can make it harder to build emotional momentum, because jurors don’t fully hear how badly you were hurt until later.
What this feels like to a plaintiff
If your case is tried under SB 68’s framework, the experience will be different from the old one‑phase model:
Your testimony may come in two chunks. First you’ll talk about how the crash or incident happened; later you’ll talk about your medical care and how your life changed.
Early in the trial, the focus will be almost entirely on fault—rules of the road, safety policies, who did what and when—rather than on what you went through afterward.
In closing, your lawyer will describe your pain and losses but will be more careful about how they talk about the number itself. They’ll invite the jury to set a fair value rather than telling them a specific giant figure to start from.
None of this takes away your right to seek non‑economic damages. Juries can still award significant pain‑and‑suffering amounts when injuries genuinely change a person’s life. SB 68 changes the theater around that decision: how the trial is staged, what jurors hear first, and how they’re asked to think about the number.
How you and your lawyer can adapt
A few practical shifts help cases fit this new reality:
Build a clean liability story. With fault decided first, you can’t rely on sympathy alone. Clear timelines, scene photos, credible witnesses, and expert analysis matter more than ever.
Document your life changes in detail. Pain journals, specific examples of missed events or lost abilities, and statements from family or coworkers give the jury something real to work with when they set a number.
Practice for a phased presentation. Work with your lawyer so your story in phase one (what happened) lines up smoothly with your story in phase two (what changed), making it easy for jurors to connect the conduct they found negligent with the harm they’re valuing.
From the outside, SB 68 can look like a stack of technical rule changes. From inside a case, it changes how your story is told and how jurors are invited to put a dollar figure on what you went through. Knowing that ahead of time helps you and your lawyer plan a strategy that fits the new Georgia courtroom rules instead of fighting them.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is
not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Laws change frequently and may vary by county or city; this blog reflects a general understanding of Georgia law as of the date of publication.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!