Can a Lawyer Use a “Per Diem” Argument for Pain and Suffering in Georgia?
On this page
A per diem argument is a familiar courtroom technique: a lawyer suggests a daily dollar value for a person’s suffering and multiplies it across the time the suffering has lasted or will last. Georgia’s 2025 tort reform reshaped the rules around arguing dollar values for noneconomic damages, which directly affects how, and when, a per diem approach can be used. This guide explains the technique, the current statutory limits, and what survives the change.
What a Per Diem Argument Is
In a per diem argument, counsel proposes a value for a single day of pain, say a figure for each day the injured person has lived with and will live with the condition, and asks the jury to multiply that daily figure by the number of days. The appeal is that it translates an abstract loss into something arithmetic. The risk, from the defense perspective, is that a modest-sounding daily number compounds into a very large total.
The Governing Statute After 2025
Whether and how a lawyer can suggest dollar figures for noneconomic damages is now governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184, as amended by the 2025 tort reform. The amended statute imposes several constraints that bear directly on per diem arguments.
First, counsel cannot argue the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages, and cannot elicit testimony about or reference any specific amount or range, until after the close of evidence, at the first opportunity to argue damages. That means no dollar figures, daily or total, during voir dire, opening statements, or the evidence phase.
Second, any value argued must be rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages, and counsel may not reference objects or values having no rational connection to the facts proved. A daily figure pulled from thin air, or anchored to something unrelated to the case, runs into this limit.
Third, there is a consistency requirement. A lawyer entitled to both opening and concluding arguments who wants to argue a value in closing must have argued that same value in the opening portion and cannot shift to a different number in the concluding argument.
What Survives
The 2025 reform did not ban arguing a dollar value outright; the earlier version of the bill that would have done so was softened before passage. What remains is a structured, evidence-tethered approach. A lawyer may still suggest a monetary value for pain and suffering in the proper phase, and a per diem framing is not specifically prohibited, but it must satisfy the statute: argued only after evidence closes, rationally tied to the evidence, and consistent across opening and closing.
This restriction applies retroactively, so it governs pending cases, not only those filed after the law took effect.
What This Means
The practical effect is that a per diem argument cannot rest on an arbitrary daily number or be introduced early to prime the jury. If a daily figure is used, it has to connect to the evidence of how the injury has actually affected the person. The technique is constrained rather than eliminated, and its persuasive force now depends on the strength of the underlying evidentiary record.
Key Takeaways
- A per diem argument assigns a daily dollar value to suffering and multiplies it over time.
- Under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184, no dollar value for noneconomic damages may be argued until after the close of evidence.
- Any figure must be rationally related to the evidence, and must be consistent between opening and closing arguments.
- The reform constrains rather than bans such arguments, and applies retroactively to pending cases.
This article provides general information about Georgia law and is not legal advice. Statutes and court decisions change, and how the law applies depends on the specific facts of a situation. For advice about a particular matter, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.