Georgia crime victims decry Kemp’s bill limiting lawsuit damages

A group of crime victims, attorneys and security experts on Monday denounced Gov. Brian Kemp’s proposed overhaul of the state’s civil litigation system, saying the bill would make it harder for victims to get justice in the courts.

Advocates say Senate Bill 68 would limit excessive claims while still allowing people to recover appropriate damages from negligent parties. But critics, such as those who gathered Monday, say the bill would undermine crime victims who have suffered because businesses, commercial property owners and others failed to take basic precautions to keep people safe.

“SB 68 is bad for children, bad for families, bad for victims and bad for little girls who are molested by grown men in places that you trust to care for them,” Susan Cobb of Hartwell, the mother of a sexual abuse victim, said at a news conference in Atlanta.

SB 68 is a top priority for Kemp, who has said excessive damage awards are undermining businesses and raising insurance costs for consumers and companies alike.

Kemp spokesman Garrison Douglas said that opponents of the measure “have shamelessly used tragic yet completely unrelated events to spread fear and falsehoods about the legislation.”

“The truth is that SB 68 protects the constitutional rights of all Georgians, ensures those who have been wronged receive justice, and restores fairness in our courtrooms,” Douglas said.

The bill has gained widespread support from business groups and is backed by millions of dollars in advertising and lobbying spending.

“Lawsuit abuse is crushing Georgia’s small businesses,” Georgia Retailers, a trade representing the industry, said recently. “The result: skyrocketing insurance costs, lost jobs, closed stores, higher prices — and it costs each Georgia family over $5,000 a year.”

Among other things, the bill would:

• Split trials into two stages — one for deciding fault and one for determining damages.
• Allow juries to consider whether a plaintiff was wearing a seat belt in injury lawsuits.
• Ban attorneys from recovering fees twice in certain cases.
• Require plaintiffs to show jurors actual medical costs, which can be much smaller than initial bills.
• Limits when businesses can be sued for injuries that occur on their properties.

It’s that last provision that drew the ire of crime victims and their advocates Monday. As written, they say SB 68 would limit a property owner’s liability to instances in which a bad actor exploited a specific physical security shortcoming, such as poor fencing or lighting. The critics say, under the bill, the property owner would not be liable for other security shortcomings, such as poor policies, procedures or staff training.

Andrew Rogers, an attorney who represents crime victims in civil litigation, said the bill’s language would mean businesses may not be liable if an employee harmed a customer, even if the business knew the employee was dangerous.

One example Rogers cited: In 2007, a 19-year-old Marietta man was assaulted by gang members at Six Flags and suffered severe brain injuries. Some of the gang members were seasonal employees at the park, and gang problems were discussed regularly during employee briefings. The victim sued and later won a $35 million jury verdict.

Another example: Susan Cobb said her daughter was abused by a gymnastics teacher at a YMCA and later died by suicide. Rogers, her attorney, said Cobb won a $2 million settlement from the YMCA. Criminal charges and a civil lawsuit against the alleged perpetrator are still pending.

Cobb fought back tears Monday as she described her family’s ordeal. She said the money she’s won will go toward a foundation that will benefit children and animals.

“It was never about the money for us,” Cobb said, sobbing. “It was about injustice for our daughter, who should have, in life, gotten justice. We wanted to make sure she got justice, at least in her death.”