Clayton County judges hear extended argument over Georgia's new tort-reform bifurcation rules

A prolonged procedural confrontation over Georgia's new bifurcation statute consumed a large portion of the Feb. 11 civil calendar in Clayton County State Court. Judge Tammy Long Hayward heard competing legal views about what trial evidence belongs in the statute's initial phase, who may apportion fault and how causation and injury proofs should be handled before a jury.

Plaintiff and defense counsel offered sharply different readings of the statute (codified in revised tort-apportionment provisions), with defense lawyers urging that separating liability from sympathy-inducing damages is a legislative corrective and plaintiff lawyers warning the statute forces juries to apportion fault without adequate evidence of injuries. As one defense advocate argued, bifurcation historically allows jurors to focus first on fault and apportionment; opposing counsel countered that under the new statute "the trier of fact shall determine the percentages of fault for all persons or entities that contributed to such injuries," which they say requires introduction of injury evidence in phase 1.

Judge Long Hayward repeatedly said the statute is poorly written and that judges statewide are actively exchanging practice notes; she declined to issue a blanket ruling at the calendar call and said she would consult colleagues and consider the parties' written motions before deciding whether to apply the statute or how to limit phase-1 evidence. "The statute is horrible," she said during argument, noting the practical difficulties it creates for pretrial planning and clean jury trials. The judge asked counsel to meet and confer about the precise boundaries of phase 1 evidence, file motions in limine and Daubert challenges with proposed scheduling, and to provide the court with proposed pretrial language describing what each side intends to present in each phase.

The exchange matters because several high-value premises-liability and personal-injury cases on the calendar will be affected: if the court adopts an expansive reading of phase 1, parties will need to present medical-causation evidence earlier; if the court adopts a narrow reading, litigants will face constraints on what can be shown to jurors initially. Judge Long Hayward asked the parties to set firm deadlines for expert disclosure, motions, and mediation so the court can issue clear orders before any jury is empaneled.