Georgia Court of Appeals Addresses Important Issues in Truck Wreck Litigation

In Transcontinental Carriers, Inc. v. Bennett, No. A26A1643 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2026), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict awarding $7 million in damages and $1,546,500 in attorney fees after a serious tractor-trailer collision on Interstate 75.

Background

On July 1, 2020, James Evans was driving a tractor-trailer for Transcontinental Carriers northbound on I-75 in Houston County. He overtook a tractor-trailer driven by Lewis Bennett, failed to maintain his lane, and forced Bennett across the emergency lane and into a guardrail. Evans did not stop. He kept driving for several miles until police forced him off an exit ramp and boxed him in. Police later learned that multiple 911 callers had reported his truck weaving and running other vehicles off the road.

Evans had Type 1 diabetes. A hospital confirmed his very high blood sugar and found that he had not taken insulin for at least two days. Although he had been diagnosed in 1995 and educated extensively on the need for insulin, his medical records showed a long history of neglecting treatment and of misleading his doctors and employers about his condition.

Transcontinental’s own conduct was also at issue. The company said it required its drivers to comply with federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, but it never looked further than a medical examiner’s certificate. It did not note the testing equipment in Evans’s truck, and it did not remove him from service after the crash.

Bennett reported no injuries at the scene, but his symptoms worsened until he was admitted to an emergency room a few days later for spinal cord surgery. He later needed more treatment and surgery for permanent spinal cord injury and bladder dysfunction, and he now uses a four-point walker.

Bennett sued Transcontinental, its insurer, and Evans. After Evans died in August 2021, his estate’s administrator participated in the litigation.  The jury found Evans 30% at fault and Transcontinental 70% at fault.

Injury Evidence During the Liability Phase of a Trifurcated Trial

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-15, enacted as part of SB 68 and effective April 21, 2025, generally allows any party in a bodily injury or wrongful death case to elect to try the case in separate phases upon timely written demand. The first phase decides fault, the second decides compensatory damages, and a third phase can address punitive damages or attorney fees.

The defendants argued that evidence of Bennett’s injuries belonged in the damages phase. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Under longstanding Georgia law, proving fault requires proving both injury and proximate causation, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it let Bennett detail his injuries and their extent in the first phase. Evidence of the dollar amount of damages, however, still waits for the second phase.

Conscious Disregard of Safety Risks Supports Bad-Faith Attorney Fees

The jury awarded more than $1.5 million in attorney fees under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. The Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient. Relying on the Supreme Court of Georgia, it explained that evidence sufficient to support punitive damages will also support a jury’s finding of bad faith under § 13-6-11, and that Georgia courts have consistently treated a history of impaired driving as conduct that can justify punitive damages.

Proof of Reasonable Fees

The defendants also challenged how Bennett proved the amount of fees. Bennett never introduced his contingency-fee agreement at trial, and O.C.G.A. § 9-15-16(b) bars such an agreement only when it is offered as proof that the fees are reasonable. Bennett could prove reasonableness through testimony that a specific percentage fee was reasonable and customary under the circumstances of the work.

The court relied on Cayamcela v. Advocacy Trust, 932 S.E.2d 64 (Ga. 2026). In Cayamcela, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that § 9-15-16(b) bars a contingency-fee agreement only as proof of reasonableness, and courts may still consider it for other purposes, such as the total fees incurred. Practitioners should note that the Cayamcela plaintiffs did not rely on percentage testimony alone. They also offered hourly estimates and a detailed chart of the work performed. Presenting hours and rates alongside the customary-percentage testimony remains the safer approach.

A Motor Carrier Cannot Limit Its Liability to Its Own Percentage of Fault

Transcontinental argued that the judgment should be reduced to reflect only its 70% share of fault. The court rejected the argument. Transcontinental had admitted respondeat superior liability in its discovery responses, the trial court refused to let it withdraw that admission, and Transcontinental did not appeal that ruling. Under respondeat superior, “the principal is entirely responsible for the agent’s negligence, and fault cannot be apportioned between the principal and the agent/tortfeasor.” As a result, Transcontinental was responsible for the full judgment. 

Author: Patrick A. Cruise