Exclusive Remedy in Georgia

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Georgia, workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive legal remedy for work-related injuries. O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11.

This means that an injured employee cannot sue his employer in tort for monetary damages, such as by bringing a negligence, wrongful death, or premises liability claim. 

CO-EMPLOYEES

Georgia generally extends the rule to protect co-employees from tort lawsuits. So, in most cases, an injured worker cannot sue a co-employee for negligence.

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to injuries that the employer intentionally inflicted. To show that this exception applies to her case, an employee must prove that the employer had specific intent to cause injury.

The employee generally cannot establish this exception merely by showing that the employer subjected her to an unsafe workplace and conditions it knew were dangerous, or that it violated OSHA.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE

Georgia generally rejects the “dual capacity” doctrine. Under that doctrine, an employee may sue his employer in tort for a work-related injury if the employer plays a second role in addition to employer that places on him obligations in addition to those he has by being the employer. An example is where an employer also builds equipment and that equipment injures the employee. In Georgia, however, an employer is usually not liable in tort merely because it occupies another role (property owner, product manufacturer, etc.) connected to employment.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties. For example, if the employee is struck by a car driven by a member of the public while the employee is on the clock, the rule does not bar the lawsuit against the driver. To take another example, if an employee is injured during work by defective equipment that is manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.

INJURIES ARISING OUTSIDE OF EMPLOYMENT

If the injury does not arise "out of and in the course of" employment (e.g., an injury during a purely personal detour or social event), it falls outside the workers' compensation system, meaning the exclusive remedy rule does not apply. 

EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE COVERAGE

If an employer is legally required to carry workers' compensation insurance but fails to do so, it is not protected from tort lawsuits by the exclusive remedy rule.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

The rule only applies to employees. It generally does not apply to independent contractors. But it’s not always clear whether a particular employee is an independent contractor. To determine a worker’s status, courts examine:

• The company’s right to control the worker.
• The method of payment.
• Whether the company furnishes the worker’s equipment.
• Whether the company has the right to terminate the worker.
• The nature of the work relationship.

FEDERAL CLAIMS

The exclusivity rule generally does not apply to federal discrimination claims, such as those brought under the ADA, FMLA, and Title VII.

STATUTORY EMPLOYERS

The exclusive remedy rule applies to statutory employers. A principal contractor may establish that it is a “statutory employer” and thus, that it is protected from lawsuits filed by employees of its subcontractors who are injured at work.

Companies utilizing temporary staffing agencies or employee leasing firms are treated as statutory employers and are typically protected by the rule.

Check out the exclusive remedy rules in your state with Simply Research

INDEPENDENT CLAIMS AGAINST INSURERS FOR NEW PHYSICAL HARM

While rare, Georgia case law (Dicks v. Zurich American Ins. Co.) has held that if an insurer’s willful and wanton cessation of medical benefits directly causes a new or separate physical injury, that separate injury might circumvent the exclusive remedy doctrine. 

RECENT CASES

Crawford v. Amazon GHA6., No. No. 1:24-cv-05076-SDG-RDC (N.D. Ga. 03/31/26) 

An Amazon worker with a medical condition sued Amazon for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate her because of her disability. The court refused Amazon's request to re-characterize the lawsuit as a tort case. Because the exclusive remedy rule does not bar federal ADA claims, the court ruled that Amazon could not use the rule to obtain the dismissal of the case.

Peachstate Concessionaries, Inc.  v. Bryant, No. A25A1922 (Ga. Ct. App. 12/03/25) 

A cashier at a Dunkin' Donuts was stabbed by a customer following a dispute over service and food availability. The court stated that a felonious assault by a third party is covered exclusively by workers' compensation unless the attack was directed at the employee for purely personal reasons unrelated to the job. The court noted that while being assaulted is not an obvious job duty, it has a "nonpersonal, causal connection to the work" if the dispute begins over a workplace matter. In this case, the injured worker and the assailant had never met, meaning there was no personal animosity or prior relationship. The attack was entirely rooted in the customer's displeasure with the worker’s job performance and drive-through customer service. Her employment as a cashier uniquely brought her into the zone of danger. Because the assault arose out of and in the course of her employment, the court ruled that workers' compensation was the cashier’s exclusive remedy and that she could not sue for premises liability. Click this link for a related article.

EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEIGHBORING STATES

Alabama

Florida

South Carolina

Tennessee

Share This Article: