Lawyers warn mandatory bifurcation in SB 68 would prolong trials, strip judges' discretion

Representatives of plaintiff and defense bars told a House subcommittee that Section 8 of Senate Bill 68, which would mandate bifurcation or trifurcation of personal-injury and wrongful-death trials on the election of a single party, would lengthen court proceedings and strip trial judges of discretion.

Why it matters: Section 8 would alter trial practice across a broad class of civil cases by requiring judges to separate liability, damages and punitive issues upon a party’s election. Witnesses argued that the change would increase the number of jury voir dires, opening statements, instructions and deliberations — and repeatedly summon the same witnesses.

Brandon Peake, a Columbus trial lawyer, said the provision singles out injured Georgians for different treatment. "Mandatory bifurcation or trifurcation in this bill only deals with personal injury and wrongful death cases," Peake told the committee. "You're singling out a certain class of Georgia citizens." He urged the committee to preserve judges’ discretion under existing rules, which permit bifurcation when the judge finds good cause.

Opponents described practical problems that would flow from mandatory splits. Peake and other plaintiff attorneys said judges routinely manage evidence presentation, take witnesses out of order, and protect jurors from irrelevant information. Forcing multiple phases, they said, will multiply closing arguments, jury instructions and deliberations. "For every one of those cases where you may save some time, there's gonna be 20 other cases that are prolonged significantly," Peake warned.

Attorneys described specific consequences for witnesses and plaintiffs. Peake and others said individuals who already face trauma — victims of wrongful death, sexual assault or human trafficking — could be forced to give repeated testimony. Melanie Manis, a survivor of trafficking who testified about the emotional toll of one trial, said, "To have to repeat that one, two, three times ... it takes every bit of courage inside of us to come up just one time and say, this is what happened to me." She and other survivors urged an exemption for trafficking and sexual-abuse survivors.

Supporters of procedural limits argued that courts should stop unpredictable and large awards that they said arise from exaggeration of billed charges. Some defense witnesses said mandatory phase splitting could prevent juries from anchoring on inflated damages and encourage early summary resolution in plainly defensible cases. David Stegall, an insurance consultant, and others told the committee they had seen limited examples of "nuclear" or "outlier" verdicts in the state and recommended tighter rules.

Committee members pressed witnesses on trade-offs. Representative Evans and others asked whether compulsory splitting could yield faster resolution when liability plainly fails; witnesses acknowledged that in some cases a defense verdict would shorten proceedings but said that on balance the average trial would be lengthened.

Status: Testimony will be used by staff as members consider amendments. No formal action or vote was taken during the hearing.

Bottom line: The hearing highlighted a split between plaintiffs’ lawyers and business/insurer witnesses over court efficiency. Plaintiffs’ advocates said mandatory bifurcation would replace judicial judgment with a rigid procedure that would increase court time and burden vulnerable witnesses. Defense and business witnesses said the change would constrain opportunistic litigation and reduce jury anchoring on inflated billed amounts.