2022 Georgia Code
Title 51 - Torts
Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions
Article 1 - General Provisions
§ 51-11-7. Effect of Plaintiff’s Failure to Avoid Consequences of Defendant’s Negligence

If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover. In other cases the defendant is not relieved, although the plaintiff may in some way have contributed to the injury sustained.

History. Orig. Code 1863, § 2914; Code 1868, § 2921; Code 1873, § 2972; Code 1882, § 2972; Civil Code 1895, § 3830; Civil Code 1910, § 4426; Code 1933, § 105-603.

Cross references.

Effect of contributory negligence of railroad employee on liability of employer for injury or death of employee, § 34-7-42 .

Law reviews.

For comment criticizing weaknesses in Georgia comparative negligence doctrine, in light of Jones v. Yuma Motor Freight Term., 45 Cal. App. 2d 497, 114 P.2d 438 (1941), see 4 Ga. B. J. 68 (1941).

For article, “Comparative Negligence in Georgia,” see 8 Ga. B. J. 51 (1945).

For note discussing last clear chance doctrine in Georgia, see 13 Ga. B. J. 104 (1950).

For article discussing defenses to action for wrongful death in Georgia, see 22 Ga. B.J. 459 (1960).

For comment criticizing Thomas v. Shaw, 217 Ga. 688 , 124 S.E.2d 396 (1962), as to assumption of risk on a golf course, see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 295 (1962).

For comment on Waulker Hauling Co. v. Johnson, 110 Ga. App. 620 , 139 S.E.2d 496 (1964) and the doctrine of rescue, see 16 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (1964).

For comment discussing comparative negligence and the retention of the last clear chance doctrine, see 1 Ga. St. B. J. 501 (1965).

For comment discussing Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis. 2d 362, 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967), as to plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt as constituting contributory or comparative negligence in automobile injury cases, see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 110 (1967).

For comment discussing Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1966), and suggesting contributory negligence ramifications of failure of guest passengers to use seatbelts in Georgia, see 18 Mercer L. Rev. 511 (1967).

For comment discussing Georgia’s comparative negligence laws in light of Maki v. Frelk, 85 Ill. App. 2d 439, 229 N.E.2d 284 (1967), see 19 Mercer L. Rev. 486 (1968).

For note, “Plaintiff’s Last Clear Chance and Comparative Negligence in Georgia,” see 6 Ga. St. B. J. 47 (1969).

For comment on Stukes v. Trowell, 119 Ga. App. 651 , 168 S.E.2d 616 (1969), as to jury question of assumption of risk by a guest in an automobile the driver of which has been drinking, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 487 (1971).

For comment discussing Georgia law as to a defendant’s right to bring in any party responsible to him for damages sought by the plaintiff, and comparing the approach of Dole v. Dow Chem. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 143, 282 N.E.2d 288, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1972), see 24 Mercer L. Rev. 697 (1973).

For article discussing products liability and plaintiff’s fault under the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 373 (1978).

For article discussing plaintiff conduct and the emerging doctrine of comparative causation of torts, see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 403 (1978).

For comment, “Treatment of Guest Passengers: Georgia Maintains Its Minority Rule,” see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 1061 (1980).

For comment, “Proposed Solutions to an ‘Obvious’ Problem in Georgia Products Liability Law,” see 35 Mercer L. Rev. 915 (1984).

For article, “ ‘Pure’ vs. ‘Modified’ Comparative Fault: Notes on the Debate,” see 34 Emory L.J. 65 (1985).

For article, “Reappraising the Jury’s Role as Finder of Fact,” see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 123 (1985).

For article, “Products Liability Law in Georgia Including Recent Developments,” see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (1991).

For article, “Sexual Harassment Claims Under Georgia Law,” see 6 Ga. St. B. J. 16 (2000).