Arguments about noneconomic damages in Georgia trials for bodily injury and wrongful death

Definitions of economic and noneconomic damages

Under Section 9-10-184(a)(1), the term economic damages means "pecuniary damages recoverable in tort for bodily injury or wrongful death," and its examples are introduced by the words "including, but not limited to." The examples in Section 9-10-184(a)(1) are damages for past and future medical expenses, costs of rehabilitation, costs of therapy, loss of wages, loss of income, loss of earning capacity, and funeral or burial expenses. The definition also lists loss of services performed by the injured or deceased person as a result of the injury or death, including domestic and other necessary services performed without compensation. The same definition applies when a truck accident case seeks those pecuniary damages in a tort action for bodily injury or wrongful death. When truck drivers bring a tort action for bodily injury, the subsection (a)(1) list names loss of wages and loss of earning capacity among its examples of economic damages.^[1]

Section 9-10-184(a)(2) states that noneconomic damages means "all damages recoverable in tort for bodily injury or wrongful death other than economic damages," and that list also begins with "including, but not limited to." The examples named begin with damages for physical or emotional pain and for discomfort. Subsection (a)(2) next names anxiety and hardship, then distress and suffering. It then names inconvenience and physical impairment, followed by mental anguish and disfigurement. The list continues with loss of enjoyment of life and with loss of society and companionship. It also names loss of consortium and injury to reputation and, in wrongful death cases, the nonpecuniary elements of the full value of life. Section 9-10-184(b) and (c) state their rules on arguing worth or monetary value in terms of noneconomic damages, the term defined in subsection (a)(2). When a truck crash results in a wrongful death action, subsection (a)(2) adds the nonpecuniary elements of the full value of life to its examples.^[1]

Prohibition on valuing noneconomic damages before the jury

Section 9-10-184(b) opens with the words "Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this Code section," and then provides that in the trial of any action to recover damages for bodily injury or wrongful death, including a truck accident case brought as such an action, counsel shall not argue the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages. Subsection (b) also provides, under that same exception, that counsel shall not, in the hearing of the jury or any prospective juror, elicit any testimony regarding, or make any reference to, any specific amount or range of amounts of noneconomic damages. Section 9-10-184(b) states that the measure of such damages is "the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury."^[1]

In a truck accident trial brought to recover damages for bodily injury or wrongful death, Section 9-10-184(b) reaches argument by counsel as well as testimony that counsel elicits about amounts of noneconomic damages, except as subsection (c) allows. Arguments about noneconomic damages in Georgia trials of those actions thus begin from the subsection (b) bar, with subsection (c) as the stated exception. When counsel questions a truck driver as a witness in such a trial, subsection (b) bars eliciting testimony about a specific amount or range of amounts of noneconomic damages within the hearing of the jury or any prospective juror, subject to subsection (c). Subject to the subsection (c) exception, subsection (b) also governs statements made in the hearing of any prospective juror when truck accidents are tried as actions for bodily injury or wrongful death. Court decisions decide how the standards in Section 9-10-184(b) apply to particular statements by counsel, and this entry does not cover those decisions.^[1]

Permitted argument after the close of evidence

Section 9-10-184(c)(1) provides that, in a bodily injury or wrongful death trial, including a truck crash trial of that kind, counsel for any party "shall be allowed to argue the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages only after the close of evidence" and at the time of that party's first opportunity to argue the issue of damages. Subsection (c)(1) attaches a proviso that such argument "shall be rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages" and shall not make reference to objects or values having no rational connection to the facts proved by the evidence. The timing condition and the proviso each apply to counsel for any party, so the same terms govern counsel for a trucking company and counsel for an injured person when each is a party to a bodily injury or wrongful death action. Even when an argument in a truck crash trial for bodily injury or wrongful death comes after the close of evidence at the party's first opportunity, subsection (c)(1) bars it from mentioning objects or values that have no rational connection to the facts proved by the evidence. Counsel for truck drivers who are parties to such an action may argue a value only under those same subsection (c)(1) terms, at the first opportunity after the close of evidence.^[1]

Section 9-10-184(c)(2) applies when counsel is entitled to the opening and concluding arguments. In that case, counsel shall not be allowed to argue a value for noneconomic damages during the concluding argument unless counsel argued a value for those damages during the opening argument. Section 9-10-184(c)(2) also bars such counsel from arguing a different value for noneconomic damages in the concluding argument than the value argued in the opening argument. Under subsection (c)(2), the opening argument of counsel who holds both the opening and concluding arguments determines whether a value may be argued in the concluding argument and what that value may be. In truck crashes tried as bodily injury or wrongful death actions, subsection (c)(2) applies to whichever counsel holds both the opening argument and the concluding argument. Arguments about noneconomic damages in Georgia trials of bodily injury or wrongful death actions are subject to subsection (c)(2) only when counsel is entitled to both the opening argument and the concluding argument.^[1]

Remedial measures under O.C.G.A. 9-10-185 and voir dire questions

Section 9-10-184(d) provides that if counsel elicits any testimony, or makes any argument or reference, prohibited by that Code section in the hearing of the jury or one or more prospective jurors, the court shall take remedial measures as provided in O.C.G.A. 9-10-185 or shall, with respect to prospective jurors, excuse them. Section 9-10-185 states that where counsel in the hearing of the jury make statements of prejudicial matters which are not in evidence, "it is the duty of the court to interpose and prevent the same." On objection made, Section 9-10-185 provides that the court shall also rebuke counsel and, by all needful and proper instructions to the jury, endeavor to remove the improper impression from the jurors' minds. Section 9-10-185 further provides that, in its discretion, the court may order a mistrial if the plaintiff's attorney is the offender. In truck accidents tried for bodily injury or wrongful death, Section 9-10-185 names a mistrial as a discretionary measure only if the plaintiff's attorney is the offender. In a truck accident trial for bodily injury or wrongful death, Section 9-10-184(d) covers prohibited testimony, argument or reference heard by the jury or by prospective jurors. It joins the Section 9-10-185 measures and the excusal of prospective jurors with the word "or."^[1][2]

Section 9-10-184(e) states that nothing in the Code section shall be construed to prohibit counsel from asking prospective jurors during voir dire whether they could return a verdict that does not award any damages, provided that such question is supported by the evidence. Subsection (e) likewise permits asking whether prospective jurors could return "a verdict in excess of some unspecified amount," again only when the question is supported by the evidence. During jury selection in a truck crash case brought for bodily injury or wrongful death, subsection (e) allows a question about a verdict above an unspecified amount when the question is supported by the evidence, while subsection (b), except as subsection (c) provides, bars mention of a specific amount or range. In truck accident cases tried for bodily injury or wrongful death, subsection (e) permits a voir dire question about a verdict awarding no damages only when supported by the evidence.^[1]

Source and amendment history of O.C.G.A. 9-10-184

The history line on the official page of O.C.G.A. 9-10-184, the Code section that limits arguments about noneconomic damages in Georgia trials for bodily injury or wrongful death, cites Ga. L. 1960, p. 174, Section 1, and Ga. L. 2025, p. 19, Section 1 (SB 68), effective April 21, 2025. The amendment notes on that page state that the 2025 amendment, effective April 21, 2025, rewrote this Code section. The official code hierarchy places O.C.G.A. 9-10-184 in Article 8, Argument and Conduct of Counsel, within Chapter 10, Civil Practice and Procedure Generally, of Title 9, Civil Practice. Article 8 spans Sections 9-10-180 through 9-10-186. The hierarchy shown for O.C.G.A. 9-10-185 places that section in the same Article 8.^[1][2]

See also: Flanagan Law truck accident practice

See also

On related publications

• Georgia truck-crash law notes (truckaccidentlawyer.wiki)
• Liability and comparative fault in Georgia (caraccidentlawyers.wiki)