Can an Injured Person Testify About Their Own Pain and Physical Limitations in Georgia?

After a serious accident, the injured person is often the best source of information about what the injury has actually done to their life.

How much pain do they experience? What activities can they no longer perform? Can they still work the way they did before the accident? Have ordinary activities such as sleeping, exercising, lifting, or spending time with family become difficult?

Under Georgia law, an injured person can testify about many of these firsthand experiences. There is, however, an important distinction between describing symptoms and limitations that a person has personally experienced and offering a medical diagnosis or specialized opinion.

That distinction can be important in a serious personal injury case.

Georgia Law Allows Lay Witnesses to Describe What They Personally Experience

Georgia’s Evidence Code permits a non-expert witness to offer opinions or inferences when they are rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to understanding the testimony or determining a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701.

For an injured person, firsthand observations can therefore be important evidence.

An injured person can describe things such as:

• Where they experience pain;
• How frequently they experience pain;
• What activities make their symptoms worse;
• How their physical abilities have changed;
• Whether they have difficulty walking, standing, sitting, lifting, bending, or reaching;
• Whether they can perform their job as they did before the accident;
• How their injury affects household responsibilities;
• How their sleep has changed; and
• How their injury has affected ordinary activities and quality of life.

This type of testimony is based on something the witness personally knows: what happened to them and what they experience as a result.

There Is a Difference Between Describing Symptoms and Giving a Medical Opinion

The fact that an injured person can describe their symptoms does not mean they can necessarily provide a medical opinion.

For example, an injured person may testify:

“I have continued to experience pain in my lower back since the wreck.”

That is different from testifying:

“The wreck caused a permanent lumbar disc injury.”

The first statement describes the person’s own experience. The second may involve medical causation and specialized medical knowledge.

Georgia’s Evidence Code draws a line between those types of testimony. Lay opinions must be based on the witness’s perception and cannot be based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that falls within the scope of expert testimony. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701.

Medical opinions are governed by Georgia’s rules concerning expert testimony. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702.

The distinction matters because an injured person may be the best person to explain what they feel and what they can or cannot do, while a qualified medical expert may be necessary to explain what medical condition is causing those symptoms and whether a particular injury was caused by the accident.

What About Permanent Injuries?

This distinction becomes particularly important when an injury is permanent.

An injured person can describe continuing pain, physical limitations, and changes in their daily life. If someone has lived with an injury for months or years, that person is uniquely qualified to tell a jury what the injury has actually been like.

But there is a difference between saying:

“I still cannot sit for more than an hour without significant pain.”

and saying:

“I will permanently have this particular medical condition.”

The first is a description of the person’s continuing experience. The second may require medical evidence depending upon the nature of the condition and the issue being presented to the jury.

That does not make the injured person’s testimony unimportant. In many cases, it is essential.

A Recent Georgia Decision Highlights the Importance of This Evidence

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrates how evidence concerning permanent injury, continuing limitations, and the effect of an injury on a person’s life can support an award for pain and suffering.

In QuikTrip Corp. v. Robinson, 932 S.E.2d 463, 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 2026), Patricia Robinson suffered a serious injury to her dominant right hand after falling on an uneven sidewalk outside a QuikTrip store.

Robinson underwent surgery and physical therapy. The evidence at trial showed that her injury remained ongoing and permanent. She had scarring and restricted range of motion, and the injury interfered with her ability to perform normal activities.

There also was evidence that the permanent injury caused Robinson anguish and frustration.

The jury awarded Robinson $1.8 million in damages. The Georgia Court of Appeals upheld the award, concluding that the evidence authorized the trial court to find that the damages were not excessive.

The significance of Robinson extends beyond the particular injury involved. The decision demonstrates that the jury may consider the actual effect of a permanent injury on a person’s life, including physical limitations, scarring, frustration, and the loss of the ability to participate normally in everyday activities.

Future Pain and Suffering Does Not Require a Crystal-Ball Prediction

One of the most significant points in Robinson concerns future pain and suffering.

The Court of Appeals relied on Valdosta Housing Authority v. Finnessee, 160 Ga. App. 552, 552(1), 287 S.E.2d 569 (1981), in explaining that future pain and suffering may include anxiety or worry proximately attributable to an injury, as well as mental distress caused by impairment of the enjoyment of life.

Importantly, Finnessee and Robinson recognize that direct evidence specifically stating that a plaintiff will experience pain in the future is not required. The jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence based upon common experience and observations.

That principle can be particularly important in a serious injury case.

An injured person does not necessarily have to predict exactly how much pain they will experience five, ten, or twenty years from now. Instead, the jury can consider evidence concerning the nature and permanence of the injury, continuing symptoms, physical restrictions, scarring, and the effect the injury has had on the person’s ability to enjoy ordinary activities.

In Robinson, the Court specifically pointed to evidence that the plaintiff’s injury was ongoing and permanent, included scarring, restricted her ability to perform normal activities, and caused her anguish and frustration. That evidence supported the jury’s award for pain and suffering.

The Jury Can Consider the Real-World Consequences of an Injury

Medical records can document diagnoses, treatment, testing, and medical findings.

A qualified doctor can explain the nature of an injury and, when properly supported, provide opinions concerning diagnosis, prognosis, and medical causation.

But medical records do not necessarily tell the entire story.

The injured person can explain what it is actually like to live with the injury.

Before the accident, perhaps the person could work a full day without difficulty. They could mow the lawn, play golf, exercise, pick up their grandchildren, work around the house, or participate in other activities they enjoyed.

After the accident, those activities may have become difficult or impossible.

That firsthand evidence can help a jury understand the difference between a medical description of an injury and the real-world consequences of that injury.

The Robinson decision provides a recent Georgia example of this principle. The evidence showed not simply that Robinson had suffered an injury, but that the injury continued to affect her ability to perform normal activities and caused ongoing anguish and frustration.

Specific Testimony Is Often More Meaningful Than General Statements

An injured person’s testimony is generally most useful when it explains specific changes rather than simply making broad conclusions.

For example:

“My back hurts.”

is relatively general.

Compare that with:

“Before the collision, I could work an eight-hour shift standing and lifting boxes. Since the collision, I have difficulty standing for more than 30 minutes, and I have to take breaks because of the pain.”

The second statement gives the jury concrete information about the person’s life before and after the accident.

It allows the jury to consider the testimony alongside medical records, physicians’ testimony, employment records, photographs, testimony from family members and co-workers, and other evidence.

Family Members and Co-Workers May Also Have Important Testimony

The injured person is not necessarily the only person who can describe changes following an accident.

A spouse may testify about changes in the person’s daily routine.

A family member may describe changes in physical activity or household responsibilities.

A co-worker may explain how an employee’s ability to perform a job changed after the accident.

These witnesses can provide observations based on their own experiences.

Such evidence can be particularly important when an injury is not readily apparent from a photograph or physical examination.

Pain and Suffering Are Not Simply a Calculation of Medical Bills

Another important lesson from QuikTrip Corp. v. Robinson is that damages for pain and suffering are not simply a mathematical calculation based on medical expenses.

The Court of Appeals considered evidence of Robinson’s permanent injury, continuing limitations, scarring, and the effect of the injury on her normal activities and enjoyment of life. The Court concluded that this evidence supported the jury’s award.

Georgia law gives the jury substantial responsibility in determining damages for pain and suffering. As Finnessee explains, the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and from common experience when determining future pain and suffering.

That makes evidence concerning the injured person’s actual life particularly important.

Medical bills can demonstrate the cost of treatment.

Medical testimony can explain the nature and extent of an injury.

But neither necessarily tells the jury what it means to live with that injury every day.

The Bottom Line

In Georgia personal injury cases, an injured person’s testimony can be an important part of proving the real-world consequences of an accident.

The injured person can describe symptoms, pain, physical limitations, and the ways an injury has affected everyday life, subject to the limitations Georgia law places on lay testimony and specialized medical opinions. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701.

Medical experts may be necessary to establish diagnoses, complicated medical causation, prognosis, or other issues requiring specialized knowledge. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702.

But QuikTrip Corp. v. Robinson demonstrates why the injured person’s own story remains so important.

The jury can consider evidence of permanent injury, continuing pain and limitations, scarring, frustration, and the loss of the ability to participate in ordinary activities. And under Robinson and Finnessee, the jury does not necessarily need direct testimony predicting future pain. It may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and from common experience.

The medical evidence can help establish what the injury is.

The injured person can help the jury understand what that injury has done to their life.

In a serious Georgia personal injury case, both can be important.

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The requirements for proving injury, causation, permanency, and damages can vary depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case.

By: Patrick A. Cruise