Only when clear and convincing evidence shows the driver’s conduct went beyond negligence, to “that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences,” under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(b). A simple rear-end crash doesn’t qualify, and an ordinary traffic violation with no pattern of dangerous driving generally won’t support them.
Facts that have supported them include:
- driving under the influence;
- a pattern or policy of dangerous driving, such as repeated violations;
- leaving the scene, depending on the facts;
- extreme speeding, or racing.
The limit depends on the reason. Under § 51-12-5.1(f), there’s no cap if the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs “to that degree that his or her judgment is substantially impaired,” or had specific intent to harm. The award reaches only the “active tort-feasor,” so the driver’s employer doesn’t pay on this basis. Everyone else faces the $250,000 cap in (g).
An employer can be separately exposed if its own conduct was bad enough, such as keeping a driver it knew had repeated DUIs on the road. Quynn v. Hulsey (2020) left the door open by holding that a claim for negligent hiring or entrustment isn’t dismissed just because the employer admits liability.
Insurance is a limit in the real world. Georgia public policy on insuring punitive damages is a separate point to check with a lawyer, and a driver’s personal assets may be the only source. A claim for punitive damages must be specifically asked for in the complaint, (d)(1).
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.