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.