Key Takeaways
Georgia and South Carolina both use modified comparative negligence, but the cut-off differs by one point. Georgia bars recovery when you are 50% or more at fault (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(g)); South Carolina bars it at 51% or more (Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 (1991)). A driver assessed at exactly 50% fault recovers nothing in Georgia and half their damages in South Carolina. The states also now diverge on evidence: since Senate Bill 68 took effect on 21 April 2025, Georgia allows a jury to hear that you were not wearing a seat belt (O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d)), while South Carolina excludes it (S.C. Code § 56-5-6540(C)). SB 68 did not change Georgia’s 50% bar, despite widespread reporting to the contrary. Which rule applies generally turns on the state where the crash happened, not where you live.
A driver found exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing in Georgia and half their damages in South Carolina. One percentage point, one state line, and the difference between a full case and no case at all.
Both states use modified comparative negligence: your recovery is reduced by your share of fault, and past a threshold you recover nothing. The threshold is not the same, and neither is the rule about what a defence lawyer may put in front of a jury.
The bar: 50% in Georgia, 51% in South Carolina
| Georgia | South Carolina | |
|---|---|---|
| Rule | Modified comparative negligence | Modified comparative negligence |
| You are barred at | 50% or more | 51% or more |
| At exactly 50% fault | You recover nothing | You recover half |
| Source | O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(g) | Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 (1991) |
| Form | Statute | Common law — a Supreme Court decision, not a code section |
Georgia’s rule is statutory. O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(g) provides that a plaintiff “shall not be entitled to receive any damages if the plaintiff is 50 percent or more responsible” for the injury. Subsection (a) reduces damages otherwise recoverable in proportion to the plaintiff’s own fault.
South Carolina’s comes from case law. The South Carolina Supreme Court adopted modified comparative negligence in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 (1991), setting the cutoff so that a plaintiff who is 50% or less at fault still recovers, reduced by that share. There is no code section to cite because there is no statute — a point worth knowing before anyone goes looking for one.
The same case, either side of the Savannah River
A crash valued at $300,000, with the injured driver assessed at different levels of fault:
| Plaintiff’s fault | Recovery in Georgia | Recovery in South Carolina |
|---|---|---|
| 20% | $240,000 | $240,000 |
| 49% | $153,000 | $153,000 |
| 50% | $0 | $150,000 |
| 51% | $0 | $0 |
The two systems are identical until the moment they are not. Everything below 50% behaves the same way in both states. At exactly 50% they diverge completely, and that is the single figure an adjuster in a borderline case is working toward.
What a defence lawyer may show the jury about your seat belt
The two states now take opposite positions, and Georgia’s changed recently.
Senate Bill 68, approved 21 April 2025, revised O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d) so that an occupant’s failure to wear a seat belt may now be considered in a civil action on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation and assumption of risk. The court still weighs admissibility under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403. Before that change, the evidence was excluded.
South Carolina excludes it. Under S.C. Code § 56-5-6540(C), a seat-belt violation is not negligence per se, is not contributory negligence, and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action.
In a state where fault percentages decide whether you recover at all, a category of evidence that is admissible on one side of the line and inadmissible on the other is not a technicality.
What SB 68 did not do
Widely repeated summaries say SB 68 “clarified” or “reinforced” Georgia’s 50% bar. It did not touch it. SB 68 does not amend O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33; the three references to that section in the bill are cross-references from the new negligent-security provisions directing the trier of fact to apportion fault under it. The apportionment statute is unchanged. SB 68 also did not change any filing deadline.
How fault is divided among defendants
The bar decides whether you recover. Apportionment decides who pays, and the states differ again.
Georgia apportions damages among liable parties severally, not jointly, with no right of contribution (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(b)). The trier of fact may also consider the fault of nonparties, which under subsection (c)(1) requires either a settlement with that nonparty or notice not later than 120 days before trial.
South Carolina takes a hybrid approach. Under S.C. Code § 15-38-15(A), joint and several liability “does not apply to any defendant whose conduct is determined to be less than fifty percent of the total fault” — that defendant is liable only for its own percentage. A defendant at 50% or more may be held liable for the whole judgment. Note the wording: the cut-off is less than fifty percent, so a defendant at exactly 50% falls on the joint-liability side.
South Carolina amended this section in 2025. Act No. 42 (H.3430), effective 1 January 2026, narrowed the exception in § 15-38-15(F). Conduct involving the use, sale or possession of alcohol — and gross negligence — no longer escapes subsection (A)’s apportionment, though wilful, wanton, reckless or intentional conduct and illegal drug conduct still do, and such a defendant is now expressly jointly and severally liable for all of subsection (A)’s damages.
In its place the Act added § 61-2-147, a rule specific to alcohol: where a verdict is rendered against both a licensed establishment and a driver charged with DUI, the licensee is jointly and severally liable for fifty percent of the plaintiff’s actual damages. So the change is not one-directional — one route to full joint liability closed and a narrower, more specific one opened.
Section 11 of the Act applies it only to causes of action arising or accruing after 1 January 2026. Which version governs depends on when the injury happened, and the Code publishes both.
The practical consequence: in a Georgia case with an uninsured or insolvent co-defendant, the share assigned to that party may simply be uncollectable. In South Carolina, if another defendant is 50% or more at fault, it may not be.
Which state’s law applies
Generally the law of the state where the crash happened, not where you live or where the other driver is from. On I-95 between Savannah and Hardeeville, or I-20 approaching the Augusta river crossing, that can turn on a few miles of interstate. It is the first question to settle in any case near the border, because it determines the bar, the apportionment rule and whether your seat belt comes into evidence.
Related
- South Carolina comparative negligence and the 51% bar — the South Carolina rule in depth
- Georgia’s personal injury filing deadline
- South Carolina’s personal injury filing deadline
This guide states the law as of 25 August 2026 and is general information, not legal advice for your situation. Deadlines and thresholds turn on facts specific to each case — including which state’s law applies. Speak to a lawyer licensed in the relevant state before relying on anything here.
Frequently Asked Questions
About the Author
Eric Roden
Founding Partner, CEOEric Roden has represented injury victims from the outset of his career and has never advocated on behalf of insurance companies. He focuses on wrongful death, automobile accidents, nursing home negligence, and workers’ compensation law. In 2013, he became a founding partner of Roden Law, dedicated to providing advocacy for injured clients. Education J.D., University […]
View Full Profile →