2022 Georgia Code
Title 51 - Torts
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
§ 51-1-27. Recovery for Medical Malpractice Authorized

Universal Citation: GA Code § 51-1-27 (2022)

A person professing to practice surgery or the administering of medicine for compensation must bring to the exercise of his profession a reasonable degree of care and skill. Any injury resulting from a want of such care and skill shall be a tort for which a recovery may be had.

History. Orig. Code 1863, § 2915; Code 1868, § 2922; Code 1873, § 2973; Code 1882, § 2973; Civil Code 1895, § 3831; Civil Code 1910, § 4427; Code 1933, § 84-924.

Cross references.

Time limitations for bringing of actions for medical malpractice, § 9-3-70 et seq.

Giving of consent for surgical or medical treatment, T. 31, C. 9.

Observance of provisions of “living wills” by physicians and other health-care professionals, § 31-32-7.

Recovery in tort for malpractice of chiropractor, § 43-9-16 .

Regulation of practice of physicians generally, § 43-34-20 et seq.

Suspension of license to practice medicine and other disciplining of physicians, § 43-34-37 .

Law reviews.

For comment on Specht v. Gaines, 65 Ga. App. 782 , 16 S.E.2d 507 (1941), see 4 Ga. B. J. 49 (1942).

For comment on Saffold v. Scarborough, 91 Ga. App. 628 , 86 S.E.2d 649 (1955), holding that the running of the statute of limitations for medical malpractice was properly postponed due to allegations of fraud, and suit for alleged malpractice instituted within two years after the discovery of such fraud was not barred, see 18 Ga. B. J. 79 (1955).

For comment on Carroll v. Griffin, 96 Ga. App. 826 , 101 S.E.2d 764 (1958), affirming a verdict for defendant-doctor when patient failed to prove he had been abandoned by the physician, see 21 Ga. B. J. 105 (1958).

For comment on Hayes v. Brown, 108 Ga. App. 360 , 133 S.E.2d 102 (1963), see 26 Ga. B. J. 456 (1964).

For comment on Gian-Cursio v. State, Epstein v. State, 180 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1965), as to the appropriate school of practice for expert witnesses testifying in chiropractor malpractice cases, see 18 Mercer L. Rev. 292 (1966).

For note, “Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Actions,” see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 470 (1971).

For note, “Informed Consent: The Illusion of Patient Choice,” see 23 Emory L.J. 503 (1974).

For article, “No-Fault Insurance for Injuries Arising From Medical Treatment: A Proposal for Elective Coverage,” see 24 Emory L.J. 21 (1975).

For article analyzing the trend in this country toward no-fault liability, see 25 Emory L. J. 163 (1976).

For article, “Baby Doe Cases: Compromise and Moral Dilemma,” see 34 Emory L.J. 545 (1985).

For annual survey of law of torts, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 351 (1986).

For comment, “Legislative Limitations on Medical Malpractice Damages: The Chances of Survival,” see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1583 (1986).

For comment, “Medical Expert Systems and Publisher Liability: A Cross-Contextual Analysis,” see 43 Emory L.J. 731 (1994).

For article, “State of Emergency: Why Georgia’s Standard of Care in Emergency Rooms is Harmful to Your Health,” see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 275 (2010).

For comment, “Georgia’s Telemedicine Laws and Regulations: Protecting Against Health Care Access,” see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 489 (2017).

For article, “Non-Physician vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony in Medical Negligence Litigation - Who Knows the Standard of Care?,” see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 679 (2019).

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Georgia may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.