How Is Pain and Suffering Valued in a Georgia Injury Case, and What Changed in 2025?
On this page
The jury values it, with no formula: O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184(b) describes “the measure of such damages being the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury”. What changed in 2025 is how lawyers may talk about money. Senate Bill 68 rewrote § 9-10-184 so that no one may elicit testimony about, or mention in front of the jury, a specific amount or range for noneconomic damages, and counsel may argue a dollar value only after the close of evidence, at the first opportunity to argue damages, with the figure rationally related to the evidence.
The 2025 rules, subsection by subsection
| Subsection | Rule |
|---|---|
| (a)(2) | "Noneconomic damages" include physical or emotional pain, discomfort, anxiety, hardship, distress, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation, and, in wrongful death cases, the nonpecuniary elements of the full value of life |
| (b) | Except as (c) allows, counsel "shall not argue the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages", and 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" |
| (c)(1) | Counsel may argue worth or monetary value "only after the close of evidence and at the time of such party's first opportunity to argue the issue of damages"; the argument must be "rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages" and may not refer to "objects or values having no rational connection to the facts proved by the evidence" |
| (c)(2) | A lawyer with opening and concluding arguments may argue a value in conclusion only if that lawyer argued one in the opening portion, and may not argue a different value in conclusion |
| (d) | A violation in front of the jury or prospective jurors requires remedial measures under § 9-10-185, or excusing the prospective jurors |
| (e) | Counsel may still ask prospective jurors in voir dire whether they could return a verdict of no damages or a verdict above "some unspecified amount", if supported by the evidence |
The testimony ban in (b) has no exception: (c) permits argument, not testimony, so no witness may give the jury a dollar figure for pain and suffering at any stage. The old version of § 9-10-184, which the bill replaced, was a single sentence allowing counsel in a personal injury trial to argue the worth or monetary value of pain and suffering, so long as the argument conformed to the evidence or reasonable deductions from it.
When the 2025 rules apply
Senate Bill 68 § 9(b) states the General Assembly’s intent that every section except Sections 6 and 7 applies “to causes of action pending on the effective date of this Act, unless such application would be unconstitutional”. Section 1, which rewrote § 9-10-184, is covered by that rule, so it governs trials after April 21, 2025, in cases already pending on that date as well as new ones. It does not reach a trial that was already over: in Barker v. Grier (Ga. Ct. App. June 22, 2026), a September 2024 car-crash trial with a $450,000 verdict, the court held that “the 2025 amendments do not apply with respect to the trial” because the activity the statute regulates is the trial or its closing arguments, and that trial ended before the effective date.
How a jury reaches a number
Because the measure is the jury’s “enlightened conscience”, the value is built from evidence of what the injury did to this person: the pain itself, how long it lasted or will last, the physical limits it imposed, and the effect on daily life, work, and relationships. Testimony from the injured person, family, coworkers, and treating doctors supplies that evidence. Under the 2025 rules, it is the lawyer’s closing argument, not any witness, that may translate the evidence into a figure.
Whether a daily-rate argument fits these rules is explained in whether a lawyer can use a per diem argument. How noneconomic damages differ from economic losses, and which damages limits exist in Georgia, is covered in economic and noneconomic damages in Georgia, and the medical malpractice cap in whether there is a cap on pain and suffering in a malpractice case.
Sources
- Senate Bill 68 (2025), as passed, LC 49 2362S, §§ 1, 9.
- Barker v. Grier, No. A26A0229 (Ga. Ct. App. June 22, 2026)
General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.