I spoke with Professor Jeffrey Van Detta to get his thoughts on the ripple effects scholars are seeing. Professor Van Detta is an accomplished Torts professor at Atlanta’ s John Marshall Law School( AJM). He has taught Torts for over 25 years, is a published Torts scholar, and he has not only integrated the study of the TRA into his course but also organized AJM’ s Law Journal’ s Annual CLE Symposium on the TRA this past March. Professor Van Detta said
“ The 2025 Act looks like every Tort Reformer ' s Wish List for Santa. And they got everything on that list. In a single stroke, Georgia went from a number one worst“ judicial hellhole” rating by the American Tort Reform Association to being completely off that list in 2026. But as Pandora learned, opening a present box may present more than what was bargained for.
The Premises Liability provisions alone are riddled with questions that courts will have to work out through years of litigation-- at the expense of parties to that litigation.”
We have seen some of that litigation begin over the past year, though it will take many more to get decisions in from the higher courts. As of now, there is no appellate decisions applying the new provisions.
I was recently involved in a divorce-tort case where, at the eleventh hour, the defendants moved for trifurcation of punitive damages. The case was already bifurcated and scheduled to take place over one week: three days for the torts and two days for the divorce. Bifurcation and trifurcation mean longer trials, in my opinion. The case ended up settling but I kept thinking,“ There’ s no way we’ ll be done in a week.” Another attorney friend of mine just completed a bifurcated trial. The trial was set to last one week but ended up taking eight days.
Right now, most of us are still just trying to figure out what we can do and can no longer do under the TRA. But scholars and appellate attorneys have higher-level concerns. Professor Van Detta shared his thoughts about where the legislative reform might be headed:“ And there are questions of Constitutionality, too.
Does singling out a class of potential defendants for such extraordinary special treatment violate equal protection, for example? Then there are the 2025 Act’ s anchoring and bifurcation provisions. Do they so far infringe on injured plaintiffs ' right to present their cases at trial that they violate the state Constitution?
It is not at all clear how the Georgia Supreme Court would entertain these arguments. Since the Court last struck down a tort reform measure in 2010, the Court has changed dramatically. None of those Justices remain; and there are now 9, not 7, justices, all but one initially appointed by Governors who support the tortreform agenda.
IN THE PROFESSION
We do know the effect of a 2026 decision by another Supreme Court – of the United States. The virtually absolute supremacy of federal procedural rules in federal court decreed in Berk v. Choy tells us that plaintiffs’ lawyers in Georgia will be forum shopping their way into the federal court as often as possible, to avoid the 2025 Act’ s procedures.”
There is an issue of first impression before the Georgia Court of Appeals of whether the TRA applies retroactively. In Sinyard v. Georgia Power, No. A26A0973. Sinyard argues that the TRA“ provides the defendant a substantive right” to apportion damages, and letting its co-defendants out of the case would deny it that right. It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeals decides. If there is an argument to be made on retroactive application of the TRA, it would certainly encourage forum-shopping.
This year, during the 2026 Georgia legislative term, we saw some new bills come in that will also affect some practices, though none were as sweeping as the TRA. HB 1208 now requires depositions to be taken before certified court reporters, and HB 530 authorizes electronic filings of pleadings in probate courts. SB 406 permits homeowners to file complaints with the Secretary of State, and HOAs are prohibited from collecting related fines or fees until the complaint is ruled on. Other bills impact criminal law: HB 162 provides for the restriction and seal of First Offender Act sentences, until that status is revoked, and HB 535 provides credit for time served regarding probation revocation sentencing.
We are also seeing some of the first movements to regulate AI usage. SB 444 prohibits certain decisions regarding the provision of insurance coverage for healthcare services from being based solely on AI systems. In practice, we may see this crossover with the healthcare updates that came with TRA and we might see this add to the rise of expert testimony. It almost certainly will increase discovery of AI-related materials in healthcare litigation as practitioners attempt todetermine how damages were calculated and whether AI was involved.
At the end of the day the TRA presented some huge shifts, and it will take some more time to see what the higher courts of Georgia have to say about different provisions, whether it is clarifying the laws or ruling parts unconstitutional. In the meantime, it might be harder to get those big settlements and awards for clients. But a lot of plaintiff’ s lawyers are still doing just fine and we are sure to still www. atlantabar. org THE ATLANTA LAWYER 21