Trained by lawyers. Built to litigate.
Your second chair. Facts in, strategy out.
Upload your case materials, assign a role, and get drafts, strategy, and research grounded in real law, not guesswork.
No credit card required · 5-day full access trial · For licensed attorneys
See it in action
Ask it like a colleague.
From the law to the courtroom. Here is how Jurisavant works through a real matter. SB 68, Georgia's 2025 civil tort reform.
Research
What does SB 68 do to noneconomic damages argument?
Strict verified law
SB 68 is in play. Can plaintiff still argue a dollar amount for pain and suffering?
JurisavantYes, but narrowly. Section 9-10-184(b) prohibits arguing the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages. Subsection (c) carves out a specific permission to argue the monetary value of pain and suffering in personal injury actions, provided the argument conforms to evidence in the record. That carve-out does not extend to wrongful death. In wrongful death cases, (b) controls and no monetary argument is permitted. File your motion in limine before trial to draw that line and preserve the record on any violation under 9-10-185.
Want more detail on how courts are likely to interpret the (b)/(c) conflict, help drafting the motion in limine, or a breakdown of how this plays out differently in wrongful death?
Want more detail on how courts are likely to interpret the (b)/(c) conflict, help drafting the motion in limine, or a breakdown of how this plays out differently in wrongful death?
Drafting
Motion in limine on noneconomic damages argument
Defense posture
Draft a motion in limine under SB 68 to exclude plaintiff from arguing a specific dollar amount for noneconomic damages.
Jurisavant
Want me to add supporting case law, strengthen the argument sections, or generate a proposed order?
IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
MARCUS J. REED,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARTWELL TRANSPORT, INC. and
DONTE L. SIMMONS,
DONTE L. SIMMONS,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.
25-CV-08841-SC
DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE NONECONOMIC
DAMAGES ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184
DAMAGES ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184
COME NOW Defendants Hartwell Transport, Inc. and Donte L. Simmons, by and through counsel, and respectfully move this Court to exclude any argument, testimony, or reference to a specific dollar amount or range for noneconomic damages, and in support thereof show the Court as follows:
1. O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184(b) provides that counsel shall not argue the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages in any action to recover damages for bodily injury. The applicable standard is the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury.
2. While subsection (c) carves out a limited permission to argue the monetary value of pain and suffering in personal injury actions, that permission is bounded by the evidence in the record and does not authorize a specific dollar figure for broader noneconomic categories.
3. Any violation of § 9-10-184(b) shall be remedied pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-185.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an Order precluding Plaintiff's counsel from arguing any specific dollar amount or range for noneconomic damages during trial.
Want me to add supporting case law, strengthen the argument sections, or generate a proposed order?
Trial prep
Opening statement: bifurcated trial, Phase 1 only
Defense posture
We elected bifurcation. Draft an opening for Phase 1, liability only. Theme: the records tell the story.
JurisavantMembers of the jury, this case comes down to one thing: what the records show.
Not what someone says happened after the fact. Not what someone says they felt. What the records actually show, the dispatch logs, the dashcam footage, the accident report, and the measurements taken at that intersection on the day of this collision.
You are going to hear two very different accounts of what happened. My job is not to ask you to take my word for it. My job is to walk you through what the records say. And when this phase of the trial is over, we believe you will find that those records tell a complete story, one that does not place the fault for this accident on Donte Simmons or Hartwell Transport.
Pay attention to the sequence of events. Pay attention to the timeline. The records tell the story. We will follow them together.
Want me to extend this for a non-bifurcated trial, add a plaintiff version, or build cross themes around the same facts?
Not what someone says happened after the fact. Not what someone says they felt. What the records actually show, the dispatch logs, the dashcam footage, the accident report, and the measurements taken at that intersection on the day of this collision.
You are going to hear two very different accounts of what happened. My job is not to ask you to take my word for it. My job is to walk you through what the records say. And when this phase of the trial is over, we believe you will find that those records tell a complete story, one that does not place the fault for this accident on Donte Simmons or Hartwell Transport.
Pay attention to the sequence of events. Pay attention to the timeline. The records tell the story. We will follow them together.
Want me to extend this for a non-bifurcated trial, add a plaintiff version, or build cross themes around the same facts?
Strategy
Trial theme: soft tissue, treatment gap, SB 68
Defense posture
Give me a one-sentence trial theme a juror could repeat in deliberations. Defense. Soft tissue. Treatment gap. SB 68 in play.
JurisavantThree worth testing with your jury:
"The records tell a story, and the story has a gap." Anchors the causation attack to the timeline without arguing damages directly.
"You can only award what the evidence supports, not what counsel asked for." Frames the SB 68 argument restriction as a principle the jury already believes in.
"This case is about what actually happened, not what someone hoped to prove." Strongest if treatment began post-retention.
The second theme is most useful if plaintiff pushes the 9-10-184(c) carve-out hard in closing, it preemptively frames the jury's role. Want me to build opening language around any of these?
"The records tell a story, and the story has a gap." Anchors the causation attack to the timeline without arguing damages directly.
"You can only award what the evidence supports, not what counsel asked for." Frames the SB 68 argument restriction as a principle the jury already believes in.
"This case is about what actually happened, not what someone hoped to prove." Strongest if treatment began post-retention.
The second theme is most useful if plaintiff pushes the 9-10-184(c) carve-out hard in closing, it preemptively frames the jury's role. Want me to build opening language around any of these?
Closing argument
Plaintiff closing: soft tissue, surgical rec, 4 months treatment
Plaintiff posture
Plaintiff. Soft tissue case. Four months treatment. Surgeon recommended surgery, client has not had it yet. Ask for 750k. SB 68 in play. Write a closing that tells the jury what to do and what to award.
JurisavantLadies and gentlemen, you have heard everything. Now I want to talk to you about what Marcus Reed is asking you to do, and why the evidence supports every word of it.
Marcus went to the emergency room the same day. He treated for four months. He did not stop because he got better. He stopped because he did what a lot of people do. He tried to push through it, tried to get back to his life, tried to manage the pain that followed him home from that intersection every single day.
His surgeon did not say the surgery was optional. His surgeon said Marcus needs it. That recommendation is in the record. The only reason Marcus has not had that surgery yet is the same reason a lot of working people in this county do not get the care they need when they need it. That is not a reason to discount it. That is a reason to make it right.
The Court has instructed you that your award for pain and suffering must be grounded in the evidence in this record. We are grounding it. Every dollar we are asking you to award has a foundation in what you heard from this witness stand.
The medical bills Marcus has already incurred are in evidence. The cost of the surgery his physician says he needs is in evidence. The pain he has lived with every day since this collision, the interrupted sleep, the limitations on his work, the things he cannot do for his family the way he could before, that is in evidence. And the pain that follows surgery, through recovery and beyond, is documented in his physician's testimony.
We are asking you to return a verdict of $750,000. That number compensates Marcus for the bills already paid, for the surgery that is coming, for the pain and suffering he has carried since the day of this collision, and for what he will carry going forward. It is grounded in the evidence. It is supported by the record. It is what this case demands.
Marcus Reed did nothing wrong that day. He has waited long enough. Return a verdict that makes him whole.
Want me to add a line-by-line damages breakdown by category, write the defense response to this closing, or adjust the ask?
Marcus went to the emergency room the same day. He treated for four months. He did not stop because he got better. He stopped because he did what a lot of people do. He tried to push through it, tried to get back to his life, tried to manage the pain that followed him home from that intersection every single day.
His surgeon did not say the surgery was optional. His surgeon said Marcus needs it. That recommendation is in the record. The only reason Marcus has not had that surgery yet is the same reason a lot of working people in this county do not get the care they need when they need it. That is not a reason to discount it. That is a reason to make it right.
The Court has instructed you that your award for pain and suffering must be grounded in the evidence in this record. We are grounding it. Every dollar we are asking you to award has a foundation in what you heard from this witness stand.
The medical bills Marcus has already incurred are in evidence. The cost of the surgery his physician says he needs is in evidence. The pain he has lived with every day since this collision, the interrupted sleep, the limitations on his work, the things he cannot do for his family the way he could before, that is in evidence. And the pain that follows surgery, through recovery and beyond, is documented in his physician's testimony.
We are asking you to return a verdict of $750,000. That number compensates Marcus for the bills already paid, for the surgery that is coming, for the pain and suffering he has carried since the day of this collision, and for what he will carry going forward. It is grounded in the evidence. It is supported by the record. It is what this case demands.
Marcus Reed did nothing wrong that day. He has waited long enough. Return a verdict that makes him whole.
Want me to add a line-by-line damages breakdown by category, write the defense response to this closing, or adjust the ask?
Demo content based on enrolled SB 68 bill text (25 LC 62 0074-EC, effective April 21, 2025). Verify all provisions independently before relying on them in any matter.
Start your free 5-day trial
No credit card required · Full access · For licensed attorneys