Georgia law permits evidence of seatbelt non-use to be introduced in personal injury cases, and Senate Bill 68 (signed April 21, 2025) significantly expanded its scope. Under the prior framework, seatbelt evidence was largely excluded under what practitioners called the “seat belt gag rule.” SB 68 eliminated that exclusion entirely. Seatbelt use or non-use is now admissible on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, apportionment of fault, and for any other purpose, and may be used to diminish any recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, occupancy, or operation of a motor vehicle. This is a substantial shift: seatbelt non-use is no longer limited to reducing the severity-related portion of damages but can now factor into the core fault determination itself. Defendants regularly hire biomechanical experts to quantify the injury-reduction effect of a properly worn seatbelt. The seatbelt admissibility provision of SB 68 applies to actions filed after April 21, 2025, not to cases already pending on that date.
39.1. What expert testimony is needed to establish that seatbelt use would have reduced the plaintiff’s specific injuries in Georgia?
The defendant typically retains a biomechanical expert or accident reconstruction specialist to testify about the forces involved in the collision, the plaintiff’s movement within the vehicle, and how a properly worn seatbelt would have changed the injury outcome. The expert must connect the seatbelt non-use to specific injuries rather than offering generalized opinions about seatbelt benefits. Medical experts may also testify about which of the plaintiff’s injuries would have been reduced or eliminated with seatbelt use.
39.2. How does the defendant introduce seatbelt non-use evidence and what foundation is required?
The defendant must establish through evidence that the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident and that the seatbelt, if worn, would have reduced the severity of specific injuries. Evidence includes police report notations, witness testimony, vehicle data recorder information, and the injury pattern itself. Expert testimony is typically required to establish the causal connection between non-use and the enhanced injuries. Under SB 68, the evidentiary foundation for introducing seatbelt non-use is now codified by statute rather than governed solely by case law, removing the prior ambiguity about admissibility and shifting the litigation focus to the weight and impact of the evidence rather than whether it comes in at all.
39.3. Can a plaintiff be barred entirely from recovery in Georgia if seatbelt non-use is found to be 50% or more responsible for the injuries?
Theoretically, if the jury assigns 50% or more of the total fault to the plaintiff for seatbelt non-use combined with any other comparative fault, recovery is barred under the 50% rule. Under SB 68, this risk has increased because seatbelt non-use is no longer limited to the damages phase; it can now be considered on the issue of negligence and fault allocation itself. Before SB 68, seatbelt non-use related primarily to the severity of injuries rather than causing the accident. Under the new framework, a defendant can argue that failure to buckle up was itself negligent conduct contributing to the overall fault picture. When combined with other plaintiff negligence such as speeding or inattention, the total fault allocation is more likely to approach the 50% threshold than under prior law.
39.4. How do Georgia courts handle seatbelt non-use arguments when the plaintiff was a passenger rather than the driver?
Seatbelt non-use evidence applies to passengers as well as drivers. A passenger who failed to wear a seatbelt can have their damages reduced if the defendant proves that the seatbelt would have reduced the injuries. The analysis is the same regardless of whether the plaintiff was driving or riding as a passenger. The passenger’s failure to buckle up is treated as comparative fault in the damages analysis.
39.5. Does the seatbelt defense apply to child safety seat non-use in Georgia child injury cases?
Georgia law requires the use of child safety seats for young children, and failure to use an appropriate child restraint can be raised as comparative fault by the defendant. The defendant must still establish through expert testimony that proper use of a child safety seat would have reduced the child’s specific injuries. The comparative fault is attributed to the parent or guardian responsible for securing the child rather than to the child.
39.6. How does Georgia treat seatbelt non-use in cases where the injury would have occurred even with a seatbelt?
If the defendant cannot establish that seatbelt use would have made a difference in the plaintiff’s injuries, the seatbelt non-use evidence is irrelevant and may be excluded. The defendant bears the burden of proving the causal connection between non-use and enhanced injuries. If the evidence shows the injuries would have been the same regardless of seatbelt use, the seatbelt defense fails and the plaintiff’s recovery is not reduced on this basis.
39.7. What jury instructions accompany seatbelt non-use evidence in Georgia auto accident trials?
The jury is instructed that it may consider the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt as evidence of comparative fault. Under SB 68, the scope of that instruction has expanded significantly. Previously, the charge limited seatbelt evidence to the extent that non-use increased the severity of injuries. Under the new statutory framework, seatbelt non-use is admissible on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, and apportionment of fault. Jury instructions in cases filed after April 21, 2025 will reflect this broader scope, and pattern jury charges are expected to be updated accordingly. Defense counsel can now argue that seatbelt non-use is relevant not only to the extent of damages but to the overall negligence analysis, which represents a meaningful change in how the charge frames the evidence for the jury.
39.8. How does Georgia handle the seatbelt defense in cases where the vehicle’s seatbelt was defective or unavailable?
If the seatbelt was defective or unavailable due to a malfunction, the plaintiff’s failure to use it cannot be held against them. The defendant bears the burden of proving that a functioning seatbelt was available and that the plaintiff chose not to use it. If the seatbelt defect itself contributed to the injuries, the vehicle manufacturer may face a separate product liability claim. The plaintiff should preserve the seatbelt mechanism as evidence if a defect is suspected.
Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this material. Georgia law is subject to change through new legislation and court decisions. Always consult a qualified Georgia attorney for advice specific to your situation.