Recovering Damages for Emotional Distress in Personal Injury Lawsuits

It can prove diagnosis, causation, and prognosis, but no Georgia statute requires an expert to prove distress as such. A person can describe distress personally, and O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184 includes “emotional pain, discomfort, anxiety, hardship, distress, suffering” within noneconomic damages. Expert evidence becomes important when the cause is disputed, when a psychiatric condition is claimed, or when the claim involves future treatment.

What each witness can do

Witness	Can address
Plaintiff	Symptoms, daily limits, history
Family, coworkers	Observed changes
Treating therapist or physician	Diagnosis, treatment, course
Retained psychiatrist or psychologist	Causation, prognosis, testing
Economist	Cost of future treatment or lost earnings tied to the condition

When it’s more valuable

• A claimed diagnosis such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
• A prior mental health history, where the question is what the event added.
• A case where the physical injury is minor but the claimed distress is major.
• Future therapy claims. Future care must be “reasonably certain to accrue”, according to annotated decisions, and a jury can’t get there by “mere speculation and conjecture”.

Admissibility

O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b) applies: sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, reliable application. Section 24-7-702(f) points to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). A record review alone, without an evaluation, can draw a reliability challenge.

The price of offering it

Georgia has strong privileges for mental health communications. O.C.G.A. § 24-5-501(a)(5) to (8) cover psychiatrists, licensed psychologists, clinical social workers, clinical nurse specialists in psychiatric or mental health, marriage and family therapists, and professional counselors. Whether a plaintiff’s claim opens those records is a question to work through before anyone testifies. The defense may also seek an examination under § 9-11-35 if mental condition is in controversy.

Threshold rules come first

No expert fixes a threshold problem. A negligence claim needs Georgia’s impact elements, or it has to fit an exception. A physical impact that doesn’t cause the distress isn’t enough, as an annotated decision about a bruised hand and damaged fingernail shows. An expert can address the link between physical injury and distress, which is element three of the rule, but the facts have to support it.

Intentional infliction

The distress has to be severe under Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991), which adopted the Restatement’s definition. Treatment records and expert testimony are one way to show that level.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Georgia has no required list. The evidence has to show that the claim fits a legal route, that the distress exists, and that the defendant caused it. Testimony alone can be admissible. O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184 treats “emotional pain, discomfort, anxiety, hardship, distress, suffering” as damages, and leaves the amount to a jury. Stronger files show the link between the event and the person’s life before and after.

Evidence by what it proves

Point	Evidence
Physical impact and injury	ER chart, photos, imaging
Injury caused the distress	Treatment notes tying them together; testimony
Distress exists	Therapy records, prescriptions, a diagnosis if there is one
Life before and after	Coworkers, family, attendance records
Earlier mental health	Prior records, if the defense raises them
Future care	Treating provider's plan
Extreme conduct (intentional claim)	Messages, recordings, witnesses

Hearsay points

A plaintiff’s statements to a provider for treatment may come in under O.C.G.A. § 24-8-803(4). A then-existing emotional condition falls under § 24-8-803(3). Text messages by a party-opponent are admissions (§ 24-8-801(d)(2)). A plaintiff’s diary, offered by that plaintiff, may be hearsay, though it can help in refreshing memory (§ 24-6-612).

Records and privilege

Mental health communications are privileged under § 24-5-501(a)(5) to (8). The file should be reviewed by a lawyer before it’s produced or used, since a choice to put therapy in evidence can have consequences. Medical providers treating the physical injury may record emotional symptoms too, and those notes aren’t always in that same protected category.

Things that hurt

• A long gap with no complaints or treatment.
• A prior condition that isn’t disclosed.
• Records attributing the same symptoms to something else.
• Public posts showing activities inconsistent with the claim.
• A demand that exceeds what the testimony can support.

Don’t delete

The duty to preserve under Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Koch, 303 Ga. 336 (2018), reaches a plaintiff’s posts and messages once litigation is anticipated. A deleted post can do more damage than the post itself.

Intentional claims

The evidence has to show conduct that is extreme and outrageous, directed at the plaintiff, plus severe distress. Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991), set out the elements, and Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (1992), the direction requirement.

Wage and earning proof

If distress kept someone from work, payroll and employer records, along with a provider’s restrictions, connect that loss. Economic loss needs ordinary proof, and it isn’t left to the jury’s conscience like the pain itself.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

The standard depends on the legal route, and the burden is a preponderance in all of them. O.C.G.A. § 24-14-3 sets that burden, with only the emergency care and punitive damages statutes as exceptions. Georgia has four routes, each with its own elements.

The routes

1. Negligence with impact. “(1) a physical impact to the plaintiff; (2) the physical impact causes physical injury to the plaintiff; and (3) the physical injury to the plaintiff causes the plaintiff’s mental suffering or emotional distress” (Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000), as quoted in Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 300 Ga. 722 (2017)).

2. Parent and child. A parent and child “sustain a direct physical impact and physical injuries through the negligence of another,” and the child dies or suffers serious injury. The parent may recover for distress from witnessing it, apart from natural grief (Lee).

3. Malicious, willful, or wanton conduct. No impact needed, if directed toward the plaintiff (Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (1992)).

4. Intentional infliction. Conduct that’s extreme and outrageous, intentional or reckless, causing severe distress (Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991)).

A fifth setting is a patient’s malpractice claim under § 51-1-27, where Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452 (2010), removes the impact rule.

What counts as an impact

An annotation says “actual bodily contact with the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct” (Ford v. Whipple, 225 Ga. App. 276 (1997)). The impact must result in physical injury. Failing any one of the three elements “has proven fatal to recovery”, according to another annotated decision.

Standards at each stage

Stage	Question
Pleadings	Are the elements alleged?
Summary judgment	Evidence of each element
Trial	Preponderance; jury's conscience on amount
After verdict	§ 51-12-12, on excessive or inadequate awards

Medical proof

Not required by a general rule. A claimed psychiatric diagnosis or causation dispute may need it. An expert has to meet § 24-7-702(b).

Damages labels

Section 9-10-184 includes “mental anguish” and “anxiety” in the definition of noneconomic damages. A jury may consider those along with physical pain, once a route is met.

Don’t overread the label

“Emotional distress” can be a damages item in an injury case or a stand-alone claim. In a crash with a broken arm, a plaintiff doesn’t need a separate count to recover for anxiety caused by that injury. A stand-alone count is what triggers the extra hurdles above.

Pecuniary loss

Lee notes that a pecuniary loss supporting distress damages must result from a tort involving an injury to the person, “even though this injury may not be physical.” That’s a narrow exception worth checking on the facts.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

They track the route the plaintiff is using. Against a negligence claim, the first defense is the impact rule’s three elements. Against an intentional claim, it’s that the conduct wasn’t extreme and outrageous, or wasn’t directed at the plaintiff. Against any claim, a defendant can dispute causation, raise comparative fault, or raise a time bar.

Defenses by claim

Defense	Claim	Authority
No physical impact	Negligence	Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000)
Physical injury didn't cause the distress	Negligence	Annotated decision on a bruised hand and fingernail
Not within the parent exception	Negligence	Lee
Not extreme and outrageous	Intentional	Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991)
Not severe	Intentional	Yarbray
Not directed at the plaintiff	Malice or intentional	Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (1992)
Workers' compensation exclusivity	Employment	§ 34-9-11
Sovereign immunity	Public defendant	Ga. Const. Art. I, § II, ¶ IX
Statute of limitations	All	§§ 9-3-33, 9-3-71

Not a defense for malpractice

A defendant in a patient’s malpractice claim can’t rely on the impact rule under Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452 (2010). The Georgia Supreme Court’s affirmance addressed a different issue. The defendant can argue that no breach occurred, or that the distress wasn’t caused by the breach.

Causation attacks

• Other events in the plaintiff’s life.
• Earlier mental health care.
• A long gap before any complaint.
• Records that attribute symptoms to another cause.

A mental examination under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-35 can be sought, on a showing of good cause and that mental condition is in controversy.

Damages defenses

• Failure to mitigate. A plaintiff must use “ordinary care and diligence” (§ 51-12-11). Skipping recommended therapy may be raised.
• Plaintiff’s fault. Reduction, or a bar at 50 percent (§ 51-12-33(a), (g)).
• Nonparty’s fault. On notice at least 120 days before trial.
• Grief. In a family death, a defendant can argue distress reflects natural grief and not the injury (Lee).

Procedural defenses

• Service. Defects under § 9-11-12(b).
• Choice of law. Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 300 Ga. 722 (2017), applied Georgia’s impact rule to an event involving Alabama.
• Ante litem notice. Against a public body.
• Affidavit. A claim against a listed professional needs one (§ 9-11-9.1).

Privileges

Some statements are protected, such as those in court proceedings under O.C.G.A. § 51-5-8, and those can defeat a claim built on them. Employer speech can raise other questions.

Evidence defenses

The mental health privilege belongs to the patient, and it limits what a defendant can get. A defendant can still object to an expert who relies on undisclosed records, or under § 24-7-702(b). An apology or a statement of error about an unanticipated medical outcome isn’t admissible under § 24-4-416.

What isn’t a defense

A defendant’s good motives don’t answer a negligence claim, since intent isn’t an element of it.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

No data ranks them. What can be said is which cases meet Georgia’s legal routes for distress damages. A claim alongside a physical injury is the ordinary route, so any injury case can carry one, including crashes, falls, and product injuries. Georgia’s rule, from Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000), requires an impact, a physical injury, and distress caused by that injury.

Settings by legal route

Setting	Route	Limit
Crash with injury	Impact rule	Injury has to cause the distress
Parent and child both injured in a crash	Lee's exception	Parent's own injury; distress apart from natural grief
Medical malpractice	Bruscato v. O'Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452 (2010)	Patient, "any injury"
Assault or battery	Malicious or willful conduct; impact in fact	Conduct directed toward plaintiff
Workplace harassment	Intentional infliction	Extreme and outrageous standard; compensation bar may apply
Mishandled remains	Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 300 Ga. 722 (2017), rejected a negligence claim	Wanton conduct is another matter
Wrongful death	Family's claim is for the full value of the life	Grief isn't a separate measure

Wrongful death isn’t about the family’s grief

Georgia’s wrongful death claim seeks “the full value of the life of the decedent” (§ 51-4-2(a)). Surviving family members’ own distress isn’t the measure. A person who also suffered an injury in the same event has a separate claim for that.

Employment

A distress claim against an employer can run into § 34-9-11 where the event arose out of employment. Annotated decisions go both ways, depending on whether the reason was personal or work-related.

Defamation and privacy

Those are separate torts, with their own deadlines. An injury to reputation has one year under § 9-3-33.

Where people expect a claim, and Georgia doesn’t allow one

• Watching a stranger’s injury.
• A near miss with no contact.
• Watching a relative’s injury from outside the event, with no impact on oneself.
• Negligent handling of remains, as Coon held.

Deadlines

Most of these use the two years in § 9-3-33. Consortium claims have four. Malpractice uses § 9-3-71.

Proof

Whatever the setting, the plaintiff has to show that distress exists and was caused by the wrongful act. The setting doesn’t prove the damages.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

It changes what the plaintiff must show and which defenses apply. Georgia decisions treat a negligence claim for emotional distress under the impact rule: impact, physical injury, and distress caused by that injury (Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000)). Intentional infliction doesn’t need an impact, but it needs “extreme and outrageous conduct” that “intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress” (Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991)).

Side by side

	Negligent	Intentional
Conduct	Lack of ordinary care	Extreme and outrageous
Mental state	None required	Intentional or reckless
Physical impact	Required, with exceptions	Not required
Physical injury	Required, and must cause the distress	Not required
Severity	Part of damages	Must be severe
Directed at plaintiff	Not the issue	Yes (Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (1992))
Who decides threshold	Elements on the evidence	A judge first; Yarbray calls outrageousness "a question of law"
Punitive damages	Requires the conduct in § 51-12-5.1(b)	Possible, on clear and convincing evidence

“Negligent infliction” as a label

Other states may treat it as an independent tort. In Georgia, the focus is whether distress damages are recoverable for the negligence. Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 300 Ga. 722 (2017), used “negligent infliction” for a claim that failed under the impact rule. So a plaintiff should plead the underlying negligence, and not rely on the label.

Yarbray’s facts

An employee who testified in a coworker’s discrimination suit, after being told counsel hoped it wouldn’t affect her job, was later transferred. The court affirmed on invasion of privacy and reversed on intentional infliction. It said that the conduct “must have been extreme and outrageous,” and that whether a claim reaches that level “is a question of law.”

Malice in between

Ryckeley recognizes a route with no impact, where conduct is “malicious, wilful or wanton” and directed toward the plaintiff. A plaintiff may meet this without satisfying every part of the Restatement’s definition, and § 51-12-6 addresses the damages when the entire injury is to feelings.

Medical claims

A patient’s malpractice claim has a third path. Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452 (2010), held that § 51-1-27’s “any injury” isn’t limited by the impact rule.

Insurance

A liability policy may cover negligence but exclude intentional acts. A plaintiff with both theories should think about how a verdict form might affect collection.

Time limits

Two years for most personal injuries under § 9-3-33, whether negligent or intentional. A crime can toll the period under § 9-3-99.

Employment bar

Negligence and intentional claims against an employer face § 34-9-11, depending on whether the event arose out of employment or was personal.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

In Georgia, foreseeability doesn’t open the door to a negligence claim for distress by itself. The impact rule comes first. Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000), described other jurisdictions’ rules, including “a broader rule based on foreseeability of injury assessed by application of factors relating to proximity, direct observation, and relationship to the victim,” and kept the impact framework with a narrow parent exception.

How other states use it

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994), describes the relative bystander test, which comes from foreseeability. A plaintiff near the scene who witnessed harm to a close relative may recover in states that apply it. That approach isn’t Georgia’s.

Where foreseeability still matters in Georgia

Issue	Role
Duty in negligence	Ordinary rule: was harm foreseeable?
Proximate cause	Was the damage the legal and natural result? (§§ 51-12-8, 51-12-9)
Whether physical injury caused the distress	Causal link, not foreseeability alone
Intentional infliction	Intent or recklessness replaces foreseeability
Directed conduct	Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (1992), asks whether it was directed toward the plaintiff
Spoliation	A separate use: "reasonably foreseeable" litigation (Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015))

Examples

For example, imagine a driver who runs a red light in front of a parent watching a child cross. In a state using a foreseeability rule, the parent might recover. In Georgia, a parent who wasn’t touched has no negligence claim for distress under Lee, however foreseeable that distress was.

Now imagine that the same driver also hits the parent and the parent breaks an arm. If the child is seriously hurt in the same impact, Lee’s exception applies. Foreseeability isn’t the reason. The parent’s own physical impact and injury are.

Why Georgia keeps the rule

Lee explains the policy behind the rule, and Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452 (2010), lists the concerns as they relate to bystanders and frivolous suits, then finds them absent in a malpractice claim, which requires a physician-patient relationship. That reasoning explains why a patient’s claim is treated differently.

Defendant’s argument

A defendant may argue that a given distress wasn’t a foreseeable result, or that it’s too remote under § 51-12-8. Plaintiffs answer with medical testimony linking the injury and the distress. Those are causation arguments, and they’re available whichever route applies.

Special relationships

A breach of a duty to a patient changes the analysis, as Bruscato shows. Outside malpractice, a general appeal to foreseeability won’t substitute for the impact rule.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

They differ mainly by which test limits a negligence claim. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994), described three: the physical impact test, the zone of danger test, and the relative bystander test. Georgia uses impact. Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000), noted that the rules elsewhere “run the gamut” and went on to keep Georgia’s own rule with a narrow addition.

The three tests

Test	What it requires	Where Georgia stands
Physical impact	Physical impact or injury from the defendant's conduct	Georgia, with three elements
Zone of danger	Plaintiff was in immediate risk of physical harm	Not adopted by Lee
Relative bystander	Plaintiff close to the victim, who saw it, and relationship	Only Lee's narrow parent exception

Gottshall reported in 1994 that “most jurisdictions have abandoned” the impact test, with “at least five States” still adhering. That’s an older count, so it’s useful for the concept but not as a current tally.

Georgia’s three elements

Lee, as described in Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 300 Ga. 722 (2017): “(1) a physical impact to the plaintiff; (2) the physical impact causes physical injury to the plaintiff; and (3) the physical injury to the plaintiff causes the plaintiff’s mental suffering or emotional distress.” This applies “in the absence of pecuniary loss.”

Where Georgia departs from its own rule

• Malice. Where conduct directed toward the plaintiff is malicious, willful, or wanton, recovery can be had without an impact (Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (1992)).
• Parent and child. Lee’s exception, for a parent injured in the same impact.
• Patient’s malpractice claim. Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452 (2010), holds that § 51-1-27 isn’t limited by the rule.

Choice of law can decide this

Coon shows what happens when events cross state lines. A mother sued a Georgia hospital, and Alabama decisions allowed claims over mishandled remains. The court held that where a claim “is governed by the common law, and the common law is also in force in the other state,” the common law “as determined by Georgia’s courts will control,” so Georgia’s impact rule applied. No Alabama statute was involved.

Federal law

Gottshall itself adopted the zone of danger test for railroad workers under FELA. That’s a federal claim, not Georgia law.

Damages limits

States also differ on caps and on which items are recoverable. O.C.G.A. § 51-12-6 addresses a tort in which “the entire injury is to the peace, happiness, or feelings of the plaintiff”. The measure is “the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors”, and punitive damages aren’t awarded in that action.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

A jury evaluates severity in most cases, using its conscience, with few fixed measures. Georgia’s law gives more structure to one claim: intentional infliction requires “severe” distress under Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991). For a negligence claim, the threshold questions come first, and then damages are for “the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury” under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184.

By claim

Claim	Severity test	Who decides
Negligence with impact	No threshold beyond the elements; amount is for the jury	Jury
Intentional infliction	Must be severe, and conduct extreme and outrageous	Judge first, then jury
§ 51-12-6 feelings case	"Enlightened consciences of impartial jurors"	Jury
Patient's malpractice claim	"Any injury" under § 51-1-27	Jury, with experts

Facts jurors hear

• How long it lasted, and whether it continues.
• Treatment: therapy, medication, hospitalization.
• Effect on work, sleep, and relationships.
• A diagnosis, if there is one.
• Earlier problems of the same kind.
• Consistency between testimony and records.

None of these is required, and no Georgia statute lists them. They’re what parties can offer to make a claim concrete.

A link to the physical injury

Under the impact rule, the physical injury must cause the distress. In an annotated decision, a plaintiff’s bruised hand and damaged fingernail didn’t help, because the plaintiff didn’t claim those injuries caused the distress. So severe distress from the wreck in general, rather than from the injury, may be argued as outside the rule.

Separating grief from what’s recoverable

Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000), left it to the finder of fact whether a parent suffered distress from witnessing a child’s suffering and death “apart from the grief which would naturally arise from a parent’s loss of a child.” A case with a family death has to deal with that line.

Judicial review

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12(a) says a court shouldn’t interfere unless the award is “clearly so inadequate or so excessive as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence”. Subsection (b) allows a new trial on damages, or a condition with an adjustment.

Limits on how it’s argued

SB 68’s § 9-10-184(c) allows a dollar-value argument only after the close of evidence, and it must be “rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages”, without reference to unrelated objects or values.

Plaintiff’s credibility

Social media posts, activity records, and prior complaints can cut against a claim. A defense examination under § 9-11-35 may be ordered if mental condition is in controversy. A person making this kind of claim should expect that topic to be explored.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

For an ordinary negligence claim, generally not. For two other kinds of claim, yes. Georgia’s rule is that “a recovery for emotional distress is allowed only where there is some impact on the plaintiff, and that impact must be a physical injury” (Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (1992)). The same opinion says that “where the conduct is malicious, wilful or wanton, recovery can be had without the necessity of an impact.” And Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452 (2010), held that the impact rule doesn’t limit a patient’s malpractice claim.

Routes without physical injury

Route	What's needed	Authority
Malicious, willful, or wanton conduct	Conduct directed toward the plaintiff	Ryckeley
Intentional infliction	Extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional or reckless, severe distress	Yarbray v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991)
Patient's malpractice claim	Breach of a physician's duty, "any injury"	Bruscato; § 51-1-27
Pecuniary loss	Loss resulting from a tort involving injury to the person	Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000)

Direction toward the plaintiff

The court in Ryckeley reversed on this point. Even malicious, willful, or wanton conduct won’t support recovery for distress “if the conduct was not directed toward the plaintiff.” It cited a case where a defendant sprayed insecticide on one family member, and only that person could recover.

What doesn’t get around the rule

• Seeing a stranger’s injury. No impact on the plaintiff.
• Seeing a family member’s injury, with no injury to oneself. Lee requires the parent’s own physical impact.
• Mishandled remains, in negligence. Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 300 Ga. 722 (2017), applied the rule to a mother’s negligence claim, and annotations say courts reject an exception for those cases.
• A physical impact unrelated to the distress. An annotated decision found a bruised hand and damaged fingernail insufficient because those injuries weren’t what caused the distress.
• Fear of what might have happened. A near miss gives no impact.

Physical symptoms from distress

Symptoms that come from fright, with no impact, raise an older line of decisions in the annotations about fright or shock. These don’t replace the three elements in Lee.

Damages rule

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-6 covers the tort “in which the entire injury is to the peace, happiness, or feelings of the plaintiff”. The measure is “the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors,” and punitive damages aren’t awarded in such an action.

Limit of Bruscato

That case was against a psychiatrist. Its reasoning relied on the physician-patient relationship and § 51-1-27, so it doesn’t help a third party, and the Georgia Supreme Court’s affirmance addressed another issue. A lawyer should look for later decisions applying it to the specific provider.

Deadlines

Two years under § 9-3-33 for most personal claims. Malpractice claims use § 9-3-71.

General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.