The grounds of a personal injury claim
Personal injury litigation in Georgia is a claim built on the tort norms of the Civil Code: the injured party demands compensation from the person who caused damage by unlawful, intentional or negligent conduct — and, in defined cases, on sources of heightened liability as well: the operation of a transport vehicle and increased danger emanating from structures. This page explains these grounds under Articles 992, 997, 998, 999 and 1000 of the Code.
The general delict and the employer's liability
Article 992 provides that a person who causes damage to another by unlawful, intentional or negligent conduct is obliged to compensate that damage. This norm is the foundation of every personal-injury claim: unlawfulness of the conduct, fault — intent or negligence — and damage must be established. Where these elements are present the general norm suffices; where the law heightens liability, special norms apply.
Under Article 997, a person is obliged to compensate damage caused to a third person by the unlawful conduct of his worker in the performance of the worker's labour (official) duty. The exception is defined precisely: no liability arises where the worker acted without fault. The victim thereby directs the claim against the employer, which reduces the risk of insolvency.
Operation of a transport vehicle
Article 999 frames source-based liability: the owner of a transport vehicle intended for the carriage of passengers and cargo must, where the operation of the vehicle results in death, mutilation or impairment of health, or damage to a thing, compensate the injured party for the resulting damage. This liability is not applied where the cargo carried is damaged (except what a passenger carries) or where a thing accepted for safekeeping is damaged, nor in case of force majeure — except damage arising during the operation of air transport.
The rule on unauthorized use matters as well: a person who uses a vehicle without the owner's permission must compensate the damage in the owner's stead, while the owner answers where the use became possible through his fault. The first sentence does not apply where the user was appointed by the owner to drive the vehicle or had it transferred by the owner.
The list of exceptions is a strategic questionnaire in the claim: where cargo or an item accepted for safekeeping is damaged, the carve-out for a passenger's belongings is precisely the detail that changes the basis of the demand; and force majeure releases the owner only where the damage is not connected with air transport — in aviation that path is closed. In preparing the claim it must first be established into which exception the former owner tries to place itself, and only then should the line of evidence be assembled.
Increased danger emanating from structures
Article 1000 determines the owner's liability: where an increased danger emanates from a structure — from energy produced, placed or supplied, or from fire-hazardous or explosive, poisonous or lethal substances — and its practical realisation results in death or bodily or health injury, the owner must compensate the injured party. The same liability applies to owners of such substances. For other increased dangers the owner answers likewise; the exclusion is force majeure — except damage caused by accidents of power-transmission lines or damage to devices supplying oil, gas or water. Damage caused by the use of radioactive substances is compensated by their user.
The practical weight of Article 1000 lies in its list of technical substances: energy, fire-hazardous and explosive materials, poisonous and lethal substances — each of these categories is widespread in industrial and domestic settings, so the identification of the source of damage often begins precisely from this list. The exclusions are exact as well: force majeure releases, except accidents of power-transmission lines and damage to devices supplying oil, gas or water — these carve-outs return the question of liability to the claimant's side when the environment causes harm.
Solidary liability
Article 998 contains two important rules. First: where several persons participate in causing the damage, they answer as solidary debtors — the victim may demand the whole sum from any of them. Second: liability is borne not only by the immediate tortfeasor but also by the one who instigated or abetted it, and by the one who consciously took advantage of the damage inflicted on another. Solidarity protects the victim: one party's incapacity does not destroy the claim — the others answer for the whole sum.
Together these norms draw a complete map of grounds for a personal-injury claim: the general delict is always an alternative, while official duty and source-based danger are reinforced paths where the damage is connected precisely with those sources.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below we answer the key questions about personal-injury claims.
What must be proven in the general delict?
The unlawfulness of the conduct, fault — intent or negligence — and the damage inflicted.
Who answers for a worker's conduct?
The employer, where the conduct occurred in the performance of official duties; without fault there is no liability.
When may the vehicle owner be released?
In force majeure — except air transport; also for damaged cargo or items accepted for safekeeping.
How much may be claimed from several tortfeasors?
The whole sum — they answer solidarily; the instigator and the conscious beneficiary are liable too.
Who compensates damage from radioactive substances?
Their user — and not necessarily the owner of the structure; this distinction determines the correct direction of the claim.
How We Help on Legal.ge
The Legal.ge team reconstructs the factual picture of the damage, selects the correct ground — delict, source-based danger or official duty — and prepares the claim with solidary liability in view.
If your health or body has been injured, write to us on Legal.ge — we will assess every ground provided by the Code and build a promising claim.