By Jordan A. Rothacker
Tort reform is a polarizing issue that usually strikes a straight partisan line right down the center of the aisle. But the truth is both sides want to reform legislation around torts – just in two different directions.
Let’s begin with a little clarity. The online legal dictionary Justia defines a “tort” as “a wrongful act that leads to physical, psychological, or financial harm, or property damage, usually due to someone’s negligence or intentional actions.”
Tort law goes back to old English common law, and it is an essential way for victims to redress grievances.
Last year in the Georgia legislature there was a protracted fight over tort reform led by Governor Brian Kemp himself and supported by his party. It began in early 2025, when on Jan. 30 Kemp held a press conference and declared his intentions to promote a tort reform package that “protects the rights of all Georgians to have access to our civil justice system, and ensures that those who have been wronged receive justice and are made whole.”
He said it was because “our legal environment is draining family bank accounts and hurting job creators of all sizes in nearly every industry in our state.” Lt. Governor Burt Jones also supported the Governor at the same press conference.
“If we want to continue to be the number one state in which to do business, we must foster a business-friendly climate,” Jones said. “We have to work together to ensure that we put families and consumers first by tackling the hidden costs we all pay thanks to Georgia’s current tort laws.”
Less than a month later the Georgia State Senate voted on Senate Bill 68, which passed along partisan lines. Then it went to the Georgia State House of Representatives where it passed another partisan vote on March 20, before returning to the Senate where it was voted into law on April 21, 2025, and signed by Governor Kemp.
Both votes were quite tight and contentious. Eight Republicans in the House voted against it, as did one in the Senate, while three Democrats in the House and two Democrats in the Senate supported it.
And then there is SB69 titled, “Georgia Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act”—the second bill in Governor Kemp’s tort reform package of legislation. This bill followed a similar voting process and was also signed into law on April 21, but did not take effect until Jan. 1, 2026, whereas SB68 took effect the day it was signed. The intention for this bill is to restrict third-party litigation funding (TPLF).
This type of reform was a cornerstone of Gov. Kemp’s agenda, and passing SB68 was seen as a victory for the governor. Kemp was so passionate about the bill he threatened to primary any legislator in his party who voted against it. We won’t know until election season if he actually tries to primary the eight Republican state representatives or one state senator who voted against it, though.
Of Atlanta lawyers, one of the most noticeable—thanks to frequent Court TV appearances, orange glasses and high energy—is Joshua Schiffer of JD Law Group. He’s also notable for quick critical thinking on all things related to the law.
Schiffer provided an analysis of the tort landscape for Georgia Insider. He rooted the history of this legislation in “premises liability,” and cited the lawsuit against Six Flags amusement park from 2013 in which a park guest was attacked outside at a bus stop and claimed negligent park security. The plaintiff was awarded a verdict of $35 million.
I asked Schiffer what this new law means for an aggrieved party in Georgia who has been injured in some way by a business or corporation, and he explained through a narrative, as lawyers are prone to do.
Schiffer began, “So, you’re a regular Joe. You’re walking around in the universe; you are at Publix. And you slip and fall, or you are assaulted by another Publix customer. Alright, so far, you’ve done nothing wrong. You just exist and you are at Publix.”
“Who’s responsible for protecting you at Publix?” Schiffer asked. “Is it reasonable for you to expect that Publix is gonna be safe?”
But now, Schiffer explained, with either of those injuries, you’re not going to find any lawyers who will take the case, because “we realize there’s no money.”
“They’ve changed the liability, so those cases will not survive for summary judgement, and that includes condition issues like wet floors, ice and things like that,” Schiffer said. “The law now basically shifted the burden back onto the injured party.”
It’s simple: You were the person who took the step, you’re responsible for where the step landed.
For Schiffer, the biggest issue with the new law is the bifurcated trial process where liability and damages are tried in separate phases. Either party can now request bifurcation, and in a civil trial it is most likely that the defendant would.
“It absolutely changes the dynamic emotionally,” Schiffer said. “That was guaranteed under the 6th Amendment by the Constitution. The Constitution, which sets up our jury trials with the 6th Amendment, has the confrontation clause.”
“If someone has done something wrong to you, you have the ability to confront them and explore the legal liability,” Schiffer continued. “By separating liability from damages, it allows basically two different cases to get presented. So, that’s what this bifurcation really does. Emotionally separates the fight about the liability from the actual assessment of damages. And I believe that the response to an allegation of injury certainly impacts the damages.”
If this bifurcation can seem so obviously problematic for attorney Schiffer, then who does it benefit? He thinks it’s a “giant gift” and unnecessary benefit to property owners at the cost of consumers and claimants.
Chris Clark, the President and CEO of the Georgia Chamber said that this legislation will, “curb lawsuit abuse while protecting families, small businesses, and Georgia’s medical community,” in an official press release last March.
But is lawsuit abuse really a big problem, and are there costs to trying to curb it through the law? Schiffer said it’s a “loaded question.”
“There are many frivolous lawsuits filed by all kinds of parties in Georgia – sure – we see frivolous criminal lawsuits and allegations, we see civil allegations and lawsuits that are unsustainable and being used bluntly to harass people,” Schiffer said. “That’s an unfortunate side effect of having a criminal justice system.”
While the average person might not be bothered by a downturn in personal injury law, it causes worry around the lack of available representation. It also points to another key point to the tort problem.
“Your perspective on harassing lawsuits relates directly to your role in the system,” Schiffer said. “What is absolutely valid for one party is the epitome of harassing garbage by another person, because all suffering is relative.”
Schiffer predicts the number of filed lawsuits has decreased dramatically with the tort reforms, and most lawyers think “it’s just not worth it. “
“I know that personally my friends are like, ‘No, I don’t take them anymore – Why would I chase bad money?’” Schiffer said. “So, that’s a giant impact.”
For Georgia court-watchers and policy wonks, 2026 will be an exciting year as answers come to light: Will insurance rates drop? Will lawsuit filings decrease? Will Governor Kemp primary the Republicans who opposed him?
Most importantly, what will this law mean for litigants who need representation for real grievances? Get your “Tort Report” cards ready to find out.
