O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-13 (2019)

Reduction of expenses, wages, and other damages to present value

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In determining the present value of future medical expenses, living expenses, lost wages, or other economic damages, the trier of fact may reduce the same to the present value based on a discount rate of 5 percent or any other discount rate as the trier of fact may deem appropriate. (b) This Code section shall not be construed to provide for the introduction of evidence showing the cost of any specific private investment product, including, but not limited to, an annuity.

History

(Ga. L. 1970, p. 168, § 2; Ga. L. 2013, p. 759, § 1/HB 94.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article distinguishing loss of capacity to work with loss of earning capacity, see 23 Ga. B. J. 213 (1960). For article discussing the use of mortality tables in determining the value of life earnings of the deceased in wrongful death actions, with emphasis on the Carlisle table, see 9 Ga. St. B. J. 293 (1973). For article, ‘‘Problems in Calculating and Awarding Compensatory Damages for Wrongful Death Under the Fed-

eral Tort Claims Act,’’ see 36 Emory L.J. 149 (1987). For article, ‘‘Damage Calibrations Under the Federal Tort Claims Act,’’ see 25 Ga. St. B. J. 100 (1988). For article, ‘‘The Discount Rate in Georgia Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Damage Calculations,’’ see 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 431 (1997). For article, ‘‘Calculating Economic Damages in Georgia Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases,’’ see 22 Ga. St. Bar. J. 18 (Feb. 2017).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section inapplicable to condemnation actions. - O.C.G.A. § 51-12-13 applies to actions in tort, but not to the issue of just and adequate compensation in a condemnation action. Chouinard v. City of E. Point, 237 Ga. App. 266, 514 S.E.2d 220 (1999).

Evidence did not authorize award when evidence showed recent drop in earnings. - While a jury might be authorized to find that the decedent had a life expectancy of ten years longer than that set out in Carlisle’s Mortality Table, the evidence did not authorize the finding

that the decedent’s income or potential would average $6,600.00 per year during that life expectancy, where the evidence showed that the decedent’s earnings had dropped in the last several years to $1,200 per year. Swift & Co. v. Lawson, 95 Ga. App. 35, 97 S.E.2d 168 (1957). Admission of expert testimony deemed harmless error. - Admission of testimony of an annuity expert, in a medical malpractice action, to establish how the plaintiff might profitably invest the money the plaintiff had already received from a settlement with former co-defendants was harmless error since the jury found the defendant was not

liable and the error did not affect the verdict. Barnes v. Wall, 201 Ga. App. 228, 411 S.E.2d 270 (1991). Cited in Miller v. Tuten, 137 Ga. App. 188, 223 S.E.2d 237 (1976); Piggly-Wiggly S., Inc. v. Tucker, 139 Ga. App. 873, 229 S.E.2d 804 (1976); Williams v. Adams, 170 Ga. App. 35, 316 S.E.2d 1 (1984); Gusky v. Candler Gen. Hosp., 192 Ga. App. 521, 385 S.E.2d 698 (1989); Meader ex rel. Long v. United States, 881 F.2d 1056 (11th Cir. 1989); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Barnett, 199 Ga. App. 611, 405 S.E.2d 506 (1991); Childs v. United States, 923 F. Supp. 1570 (S.D. Ga. 1996).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 22 Am Jur. 2d, Damages, § 174 et seq. ALR. - Duty to instruct, and effect of failure to instruct, jury as to reduction to present worth of damages for future loss on account of death or personal injury, 77 ALR 143. Cost of annuity as a factor for consideration in fixing damages in personal injury or death action, 53 ALR2d 1454. Admissibility in wrongful death action of testimony of actuary or mathematician for purpose of establishing present worth of pecuniary loss, 79 ALR2d 259. Admissibility of testimony of actuary or mathematician as to present value of loss or impairment of injured person’s general earning capacity, 79 ALR2d 275.

Sufficiency of evidence, in personal injury action, to prove impairment of earning capacity and to warrant instructions to jury thereon, 18 ALR3d 88. Excessiveness or adequacy of damages awarded for injuries to head or brain, or for mental or nervous disorders, 14 ALR4th 328. Excessiveness or adequacy of damages awarded for injuries to, or conditions induced in, circulatory, digestive, and glandular systems, 14 ALR4th 539. Excessiveness or adequacy of damages awarded for injuries to head or brain, 50 ALR5th 1. Excessiveness or adequacy of damages awarded for injuries to nerves or nervous system, 51 ALR5th 467.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1984–2017 · leading case: Legacy Academy, Inc. v. JLK, Inc., 765 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Legacy Academy, Inc. v. JLK, Inc., 765 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “Legacy also claims the trial court erred in determining that it failed to provide sufficient proof quantifying its damages and in finding that OCGA § 51-12-13 does not apply as a basis to discount future royalty fees.”
Gusky v. Candler Gen. Hosp., Inc., 385 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Such evidence may also serve to circumvent OCGA § 51-12-13 which requires that future amounts be reduced to present value upon the basis of interest calculated at 5 percent per annum.”
Williams v. Adams, 316 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “This issue is specifically addressed by OCGA § 51-12-13, which states: “It shall be lawful for the trier of fact, in determining the present value of any future earnings, annuity, or amounts, to reduce the same to the present value upon the basis of interest calculated at 5…”
Barnes v. Wall, 411 S.E.2d 270 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Such evidence may also serve to circumvent OCGA § 51-12-13 which requires that future amounts be reduced to present value upon the basis of interest calculated at 5 percent per annum.”
Jefferson Randolph Corp. v. Progressive Data Sys., Inc., 553 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Here, the liquidated damages are all the future license fees without reduction for expenses or for present cash value and interest imposed as if it were a past due debt instead of accelerated future fees, not yet earned.”
Miller v. Jenkins, 412 S.E.2d 555 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “521 ( 385 SE2d 698 ) (1989), claim that the trial court erred in allowing evidence and argument concerning “investment strategy” in violation of OCGA § 51-12-13. After re *827 viewing the record, we find no merit in this argument since there was no reference to “investment…”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Barnett, 405 S.E.2d 506 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “” The charge given is not a perfect instruction in that it did not includes future earnings, see OCGA § 51-12-13, and because amounts awarded] for pain and suffering need not be reduced to present value.”
Curtis v. United States, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2017). · cites it 4× “667:5-8, while the Government insisted that the statutory rate of five percent should be applied, see O.C.G.A. § 51-12-13. The Court is allowed to apply whatever discount rate it deems appropriate.”
Chouinard v. City of East Point, 514 S.E.2d 220 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “According to Chouinard, the trial court should have charged the text of OCGA § 51-12-13, which provides that “[i]t shall be lawful for the trier of fact, in determining the present value of any future earnings .”
Elliott by & Through Elliott v. United States, 877 F. Supp. 1569 (M.D. Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “Wherever in this opinion it is necessary to reduce an amount to present value the Court has used a discount rate of 5% as provided by Section 51-12-13 of the Georgia Code. 3 .”
Elizabeth Jean Meader, by & Through Her Guardian, John B. Long v. United States, 881 F.2d 1056 (11th Cir. 1989). “Ga. Code Ann. § 51-12-13 (1982); Piggly-Wiggly S.”
Whitley v. United States, 170 F.3d 1061 (11th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “11 After this judgment, plaintiffs-appel-lees moved to amend the judgment because they alleged that the district judge had erred in failing to use the Georgia mandatory five percent discount rate, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-13, in calculating the present value for Lieutenant Whitley's…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 51-12-13(a) — 1 case
Curtis v. United States, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2017). “667:5-8, while the Government insisted that the statutory rate of five percent should be applied, see O.C.G.A. § 51-12-13. The Court is allowed to apply whatever discount rate it deems appropriate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.