Category: Personal Injury

CPSC Announces “Record-Breaking Week” of Enforcement Actions Against Chinese Manufacturers

On May 15, 2025, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announced a “record-breaking week” of enforcement actions against “foreign violators.”[1] Namely, the Commission announced 28 separate product safety recalls and warnings for products manufactured in China, including a “first-of-its-kind enforcement sweep of off-brand Chinese faucets found to leach lead and other contaminates into U.S. drinking water.”[2] Many of these actions were taken “unilaterally,” meaning the Commission issued press releases warning consumers of potentially hazardous products without final approval from the products’ manufacturer or retailer.
The CPSC’s authority to take such unilateral action originates from Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). Historically, the Commission’s use of unilateral action has been minimal. Companies typically find it advantageous to cooperate with the CPSC in disclosing hazards to the public. However, this recent “record-breaking week” may signify a more aggressive approach by the CPSC, particularly when it comes to foreign manufacturers that are arguably outside the CPSC’s immediate jurisdiction. 
Unilateral Press Releases under the CPSA Section 6(b)
Section 6(b) governs the CPSC’s ability to publicly disclose information about  consumer products, such as identifying the manufacturer and any product-specific information.[3] Before publicly disclosing this information, the agency must notify the company and provide it with an opportunity to correct, contest, or comment on the disclosure’s content.[4] The CPSC must give the company at least fifteen days to provide comments.[5] If, however, the CPSC disagrees with the company’s comments, the CPSC may unilaterally release information to the public—without the company’s final approval—so long as it has taken “reasonable steps” to ensure the information is accurate, fair in context, and reasonably related to the agency’s mission to protect the public.[6]
Section 6(b) proponents argue these safeguards are necessary to protect against reputational damage caused by false or inaccurate disclosures. Critics maintain its rigid framework delays potentially life-saving information from prompt public disclosure, with some arguing it should not exist at all. Even so, unilateral press releases could result in litigation, especially if the content turns out to be inaccurate.[7] Thus, the CPSC may delay the issuance of a unilateral press release to independently verify the information therein—which typically requires cooperation and further disclosure from the company. 
Insight from the Commission
Previous statements made by Acting Chair Peter Feldman and Commissioner Douglas Dziak provide insight into their views on unilateral activity by the CPSC. In 2023 Peter Feldman publicly touted the Commission’s Section 6(b) powers stating, “The law provides due process for a firm to seek revisions of what it believes to be erroneous information. Nevertheless, the Commission is under no obligation to make edits if it disagrees.” Further, in 2024, the CPSC refused to retract a unilateral statement by Commissioner Richard Trumka encouraging retailers to refrain from selling certain weighted infant sleep products. The manufacturer of those products complained Trumka’s statement violated Section 6(b) procedures, compelling a response from both Feldman and Dziak: “We do not take such relief lightly” and “the publication of the statements constitutes final agency action. Given the procedural deficiencies in this matter, we believe that the relief sought is best obtained through an Article III court.”[8] Now, with Acting Chair Feldman at the helm, it may not be a surprise that the CPSC is turning to this regulatory tool with more frequency, particularly in instances involving products made in foreign countries. 
Implications for Domestic Stakeholders and Foreign Manufacturers
For domestic importers, distributors, and retailers of foreign products, the increased risk of unilateral press releases may present some challenges. If a foreign supply partner fails to meet U.S. safety standards and refuses to cooperate with the CPSC, the burden of compliance may fall on the U.S. entity. The CPSC may also leverage the threat of a unilateral press release naming the domestic retailer to compel cooperation, even when the foreign manufacturer may be the more appropriate focus for the violation.
Given the CPSC’s increased exercise of its unilateral authority, particularly with respect to products manufactured abroad, companies that import, distribute, or sell consumer products—especially those sourced from foreign manufacturers—should perform the appropriate vetting and due diligence, verifying product safety at the outset of the supply chain. In addition—and to the extent possible—domestic stakeholders who import from abroad should work to include provisions in supply contracts that require foreign suppliers to cooperate with CPSC inquiries and recalls. 
[1] The CPSC’s official statement is available here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2025/CPSC-Sets-New-Record-for-Safety-Notices-Protecting-American-Families-and-Leveling-the-Playing-Field-for-American-Business#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20D.C.%20%E2%80%93%20This%20week%2C,weekly%20high%20for%20safety%20warnings.
[2] Id.
[3] See 16 C.F.R. Part 1101.
[4] 16 C.F.R. § 1101.1(b)(1). 
[5] Id.
[6] 16 C.F.R. Part 1101 Subpart D. The CPSC must first warn the company of its decision to do so and wait an additional five days before releasing the contested information to the public.  16 C.F.R. § 1101.25.
[7] See 16 C.F.R. § 1101.1(b)(3).
[8] The full statement can be found on the CPSC website: https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Commissioner/Douglas-Dziak-Peter-A-Feldman/Statement/Statement-of-Commissioners-Peter-A-Feldman-and-Douglas-Dziak-on-the-Retraction-of-Infant-Sleep-Products-Statements.

Experienced New Jersey Personal Injury Lawyers | Free Case Review Available

Need compassionate legal support after an injury in New Jersey? After an accident in New Jersey, you can face devastating consequences. It’s common to doubt your rights or be at a loss about how to get just compensation for your injuries. This is where the team of New Jersey personal injury Lawyers at Camili & […]

Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Enforceability of Contract Release Language Against Negligence Claims

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an important decision this week about the enforceability of contract release language. Lund v. Calhoun Orange, Inc., ___ N.W.3d __, 2025 WL 1450213 (Minn. May 21, 2025). The case arose when a client at Calhoun Orange, one of the defendant’s fitness clubs, went into cardiac arrest and collapsed while working out. The client suffered significant brain damage, and his conservator sued for negligence.
When he joined the fitness club, the client was required to sign a “Client Intake Form.” The Form provided: “Client hereby waives all claims against [the club, its employees and staff];” and “Client hereby agrees to indemnify[,] defend, hold harmless, release and discharge [the club, its employees and staff] from all claims demands, injuries, damage actions[,] causes of action and from all acts of active or passive negligence on the part of the [club, its employees and staff] for any damages, injuries or losses that may be sustained by the Client” while working out at the club.
The club contended that the Client Intake Form barred the negligence claims, while the conservator argued that the release language in the Form was not enforceable. The district court and court of appeals agreed with the club and upheld the release. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and affirmed. 
The case asked the Court to determine whether the release language in the Client Intake Form the client signed was enforceable under Justice v. Marvel, 979 N.W.2d 894 (Minn. 2024). In Justice, the Court held that the release in that case, which purported to release “any and all claims,” was not sufficiently clear to release claims arising from the defendant’s own negligence. Id. at 902. While the language “‘any and all claims’” was “theoretically broad enough to encompass claims of negligence, the language was not specific enough to manifest a ‘clear and unequivocal’ intent of the parties to shield the [defendant] from liability for its own negligence and was therefore unenforceable.” Lund, __ N.W.3d at __, 2025 WL 1450213 at *4.
In Lund, the Court concluded that the release language in the Form satisfied the test it laid out in Justice. The Court relied specifically on the language that the client “agrees to indemnify [the club, its employees and staff] from all claims . . . and from all acts of active or passive negligence.” This language, the Court held, “clearly and unequivocally states the contracting parties’ intent to shield [the club] from liability for its own negligence.” Id.
The case is important because it provides an example of release language enforceable against negligence claims brought in Minnesota. The case is also significant because the Court affirmed summary judgment for the defense in a civil case.

Legal Challenges Facing Cyclists Injured by Distracted or Reckless Drivers

Bicycle accidents involving distracted or reckless drivers have created a complex legal landscape for injured cyclists seeking justice. With smartphone usage at an all-time high and traffic congestion increasing nationwide, cyclists face unprecedented dangers on America’s roads. For cyclists who suffer injuries in these preventable accidents, understanding the legal challenges ahead is crucial for securing […]

Asbestos Litigation Trust Funds Issue Notices of Destruction

Several asbestos litigation trust funds, including the W.R. Grace and Company Asbestos PI Trust; Babcock & Wilcox Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust; Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust; Shook & Fletcher Asbestos Settlement Trust; and at least six others1, issued Notices of Destruction, advising the public that certain documents and data are scheduled to be destroyed on a rolling basis, a process that began April 15, 2025. While some notices have explained the nature of the data and documents to be destroyed, at least one of the trusts (Shook & Flecther) has admitted to not knowing what information is contained within the documents. The trusts assert that the destruction policies are being implemented to protect sensitive personal information of the claimants2. The trusts are permitting parties to download the data that has not yet been destroyed. Without backlash or repercussions to the trusts in these efforts to destroy information, we predict additional trusts will follow suit in announcing their respective intents to destroy data in the future.
Law firms have already begun submitting letters to these trusts, insisting that the proposed destruction seems “designed to avoid the production of data and documents responsive to future subpoenas” and calling for continued preservation3. After receiving notice from some of the trusts that these policies would not be reconsidered, counsel for Johnson & Johnson is among the parties that have also filed with the Chancery Court in Delaware4, seeking an injunction to the destruction5. The complaint asserts that the trusts’ actions “would permanently destroy evidence that is highly relevant to tens of thousands of known asbestos-related personal injury claims and other legal proceedings across the country” and that the trusts “concocted these new policies in violation of their obligation to preserve the highly relevant information to undermine legal precedent and numerous state trust transparency statutes.”
The trusts, borne from post-Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, were established by companies to compensate victims of asbestos-related injuries6. Over $30 billion has been set aside by more than fifty trusts for this purpose7. Payouts from these asbestos trust funds range from four to seven figures, depending on many factors, including the type of exposure, the disease state, and the length of pain and suffering8. Persons alleging harm from exposure to asbestos may collect from multiple asbestos trusts.
Although compensation can be received faster through a trust payout, many victims choose also to file a lawsuit, where the payouts tend to be significantly greater9. Defense counsel in asbestos litigation matters, to the extent permitted by local court rules and statutes, rely on proofs of claims from these trusts during discovery to establish possible cross-claims or defenses that may be asserted at trial. The anticipated destruction of data and documents from the trusts will inhibit such ongoing (and future) discovery efforts as litigants may not have any other sources to obtain significant evidence necessary to establish these cross-claims and related defenses10.
On January 15, 2025, the following trusts submitted Notices of Destruction11:

W.R. Grace and Company Asbestos PI Trust for W.R. Grace and Company, a chemical company based out of Maryland;
Babcock & Wilcox Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust for Babcock & Wilcox Company, a New Jersey-based energy technologies company; and
Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust for Pittsburgh Corning, a glass block manufacturer headquartered in Pennsylvania; and Owens Corning, the world’s largest fiberglass manufacturer, originally based in Ohio.

As of April 15, 2025, the W.R. Grace and Company, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Pittsburgh Corning, and Owens Corning (collectively referred to herein as the “April Notice Trusts”) began destroying data and documents related to claimants who (1) have been issued a payment at least ten years before the date of destruction, (2) have had their claim withdrawn by counsel, or (3) have had their claim deemed withdrawn by their respective April Notice Trust.
On March 3, 2025, Shook & Fletcher, an Alabama-based insulation manufacturer, also posted a Notice of Destruction of Documents12. Documents stored at a warehouse in Robbinsville, New Jersey, will be destroyed beginning July 7, 2025. This notice indicated that there are “minimal to no indices” of what documents are contained at the warehouse. The Shook & Fletcher Trust will only entertain requests for inspection of the documents by way of subpoena submitted before July 3, 2025.
Litigants should immediately begin to reach out to the respective point of contact, noting which plaintiffs’ information is sought. Requests for copies of the data and documents from the April Notice Trusts can be submitted directly by email at [email protected] and be limited to the listed categories of data. Requests for review of documents for the Shook & Fletcher Trust must be submitted in the form of a hand-delivered subpoena to the Wilmington Trust, and must include all information regarding the origin of the subpoena, including the name of the law firm, the point of contact at the law firm, and all relevant contact information of both. Questions concerning subpoenas are to be directed to Amy Behm at (513) 579-6944 or [email protected]. With all the trusts, any fees arising from requesting copies of or review of documents will be the requesting party’s responsibility.

[1] Asbestos Defendants Seek to Prevent Deletion of Claim Records, DOW JONES NEWS WIRES (originally published by WALL STREET JOURNAL) (Apr. 3, 2025); Ben Zigterman, J&J, Others Say Asbestos Trusts Can’t Purge Records, LAW360(Apr. 15, 2025 at 8:06 p.m.).
[2] Zigterman, Asbestos Trusts Can’t Purge Records, supra note 1.
[3] Asbestos Defendants Seek to Prevent Deletion of Claim Records, supra note 1.
[4] DBMP LLC v. Delaware Claims Processsing Facility LLC (2025-0404).
[5] Zigterman, Asbestos Trusts Can’t Purge Records, supra note 1.
[6] 11 U.S.C. § 524.
[7] Jennifer Lucarelli, Mesothelioma and Asbestos Trust Funds, MESOTHELIOMA.COM (last updated Mar. 27, 2025).
[8] Samuel Meirowitz, Mesothelioma and Asbestos Trust Funds, ASBESTOS.COM (last updated Mar. 4, 2025).
[9] What’s the Difference Between an Asbestos Lawsuit and a Trust Fund Claim?, FERRELL LAW GROUP (last visited Apr. 3, 2025).
[10] Zigterman, Asbestos Trusts Can’t Purge Records, supra note 1.
[11] Notice of Record Destruction Pursuant to Record Retention Policy, WRG Asbestos PI Trust (Jan. 15, 2025); Notice of Record Destruction Pursuant to Record Retention Policy, BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST, (Jan. 15, 2025); Notice of Record Destruction Pursuant to Record Retention Policy, OWENS CORNING/FIBREBOARD ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST (Jan. 15, 2025).
[12] Shook & Fletcher Asbestos Settlement Trust Notice of Destruction of Documents (Mar. 3, 2025).

6 Signs You Should Contact a Personal Injury Lawyer Immediately

An unexpected injury can leave you with a lot of questions, especially if it occurred due to someone else’s negligence. Whether it was a car accident, a fall, or something else, knowing when to contact a personal injury lawyer can be unclear.
In Michigan, your rights are protected, but timing matters. Below are six signs it might be time to speak with a lawyer and why reaching out sooner can make all the difference.
1. You’re Facing Expensive Medical Bills
Even with insurance, medical care can be costly. If your injuries require emergency care, follow-ups, physical therapy, or long-term treatment, those expenses can pile up fast. A lawyer can help you seek compensation for current and future medical costs.
2. You Missed Work Because of the Injury
Lost wages can have a serious impact on your financial stability. Whether you were out for a few days or you’re unable to return to your job at all, you may be entitled to recover those losses. A personal injury attorney can help you calculate and claim that income.
3. The Insurance Company Is Delaying or Denying Your Claim
If your claim is being ignored, undervalued, or denied outright by an insurance company, it’s a strong sign you need legal backup. A lawyer knows how to deal with adjusters and can help ensure you’re treated fairly.
4. You’re Unsure Who Was at Fault
If liability is unclear or if multiple parties are involved, things can quickly become complicated. A personal injury lawyer can investigate what happened, gather evidence, and identify who’s legally responsible.
5. You’re Being Blamed for the Accident
If the other party or their insurance company is accusing you of causing the incident, you should have someone in your corner. Comparative fault laws vary by state, and being wrongly blamed can significantly reduce or eliminate your compensation.
6. Your Injuries Are Serious or Life-Altering
When an injury leads to long-term disability, chronic pain, or permanent damage, the stakes are much higher. These cases often involve complex legal and medical issues, and having an experienced attorney on your side can make a big difference in the outcome.
Final Thoughts  
Navigating the aftermath of an injury can be overwhelming. In Michigan, it’s important to act promptly, as the statute of limitations for most personal injury claims is three years from the date of the injury. Delaying action could jeopardize your ability to seek compensation.

Hartford Motorcycle Accident Claims and the Risk of Insurance Company Bias

Riding a motorcycle in Hartford offers a sense of freedom, but the risk of serious injury from a crash is always present. When a collision occurs, injured bikers often face an uphill battle—not only with their physical recovery but also in securing fair treatment from insurance companies. This problem becomes especially troubling when insurers rely […]

Personal Injury Lawsuits: What Your Attorney Wants You to Know

When a person is injured in an accident, they worry about their injuries and how long it will take to recover. As the bills start pouring in, they begin to panic. How will they pay these bills until a settlement has been reached? What if the settlement isn’t enough to cover the bills? These questions […]

What Do Clients Really Look for When Choosing a Personal Injury Lawyer?

No one wants to deal with an injury that wasn’t their fault. But in the aftermath of a personal injury experience, it’s important to put aside the anger and stress and take action.  The right personal injury attorney can fight for fair compensation to cover everything from medical appointments to missed work hours. Choosing the […]

Police Officer on Traffic Duty Assignment is Joint Employee of Their Police Department and the Contractor

When a police officer was seriously injured while working an extra traffic duty assignment, the question wasn’t whether he should get help – it was who should help pay for it.
That question has now been answered by the New Jersey courts in an unreported decision on May 14, 2025. The decision upholds the trial court’s decision that the private company the officer was helping that day must share the cost of his workers’ compensation benefits – even though the officer wasn’t technically their employee.
The ruling was based on the “special mission” doctrine. Normally, if you’re commuting to work and get into an accident, it’s not covered by workers’ comp. But the “special mission” rule says if you’re doing something outside your normal routine because your job requires it – especially in service of both public and private interests – it may still count as work.
The court found that from the moment the officer left the station in a marked patrol car, they were on duty for both the city and the private company. He was heading to a location specifically to provide traffic safety while the contractor worked, which is a service the company had paid the city to provide.
Because the city and the contractor had an agreement in place – including insurance, payment arrangements, and a clause about who’s responsible if something goes wrong – the court said it was only fair that they contribute.
This decision is important because it reaffirms that private companies that benefit from public officers’ services – especially under formal agreements – can be held financially responsible when things go wrong.
For workers, this case reinforces the protections of workers’ compensation – even when your job takes you outside the office or police station.

Georgia’s Tort Reform Legislation: Key Procedural Changes

Georgia’s tort reform legislation comes at an opportune time, as jury verdicts in recent years have been the stuff of records. Georgia was rated the #1 Judicial Hellhole in 2022 and 2023, and #4 in 2024. The new statutes, signed into law on April 21, 2025, aim to promote fairness in civil litigation procedure in the Georgia state courts, reality in consideration of damages, and commonsense fairness in trials and in liability standards for property owners, managers, and security personnel when crimes occur at their property. Key procedural changes are detailed below.
Motions to Dismiss 
If a defendant files a motion to dismiss, then it shall no longer be required to file an answer until 15 days after the court either denies the motion or announces it will postpone deciding the motion until trial. Discovery will be stayed until the court rules on the motion, and the court is required to rule on the motion within 90 days after the conclusion of briefing on the motion. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12).
Voluntary Dismissals
Plaintiffs are no longer permitted to voluntarily dismiss the complaint at any time before the first witness is sworn at trial. Now, unless all parties stipulate to the voluntary dismissal, a plaintiff must first obtain a court order to dismiss the complaint more than 60 days after the opposing party filed an answer. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41).
Damages Model
The special damages model in Georgia personal injury cases is amended to remove the collateral source rule. Thus,
Truth in special damages. Special damages shall be limited to the reasonable value of medically necessary care. Juries can now consider amounts paid by health insurance or workers’ compensation. Letters of protection are relevant and discoverable. (New O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1).
The general damages (e.g., pain and suffering) available to a plaintiff are subject to these new regulations: 
General damages guidelines:

Plaintiffs may not argue or suggest a specific amount of general damages until closing argument. 
If the plaintiff elects to open and close the closing arguments, then he/she must make his/her specific amount known during the opening phase of his/her closing argument. 
The argument for general damages must be rationally related to the evidence and shall not refer to values having no rational connection to the facts of the case. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184). 

Other Provisions
The playing field at trial is leveled to provide the following:

Seatbelt evidence is admissible.In cases involving motor vehicle accidents, evidence that the plaintiff was not wearing his/her seatbelt is admissible and relevant to the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, proximate causation, assumption of the risk, and apportionment of fault. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1).
Trial bifurcation/trifurcation available upon request.In any personal injury or wrongful death case, any party may elect to have trial bifurcated or trifurcated into separate phases: fault – damages – punitive damages/attorney’s fees.o Exceptions may be made to the right to bifurcation/trifurcation upon motion for cases involving alleged sexual offenses and those involving less than $150,000 in dispute. (New O.C.G.A. § 51-12-15). 

Finally, 
A new series of statutes provides governance and guidance for negligent security cases. 

The new laws provide stricter standards for imposing liability in negligent security cases and clarify the expectations on premises owners in the state. 
Now, in order for a premises owner/occupier to be held liable by an injured invitee for negligent security, the plaintiff must prove:

(a) The third person’s wrongful conduct was reasonably foreseeable;
a. “Reasonably foreseeable” may be established by showing that the owner/occupier:
i. Had particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person; or
ii. Reasonably should have known that a third person was reasonably likely to engage in such wrongful conduct on the premises based on one of the following:

Substantially similar prior incidents on the premises of which the owner/occupier had actual knowledge;
Substantially similar prior incidents on adjoining premises or otherwise occurring within 500 yards of the premises of which the owner/occupier had actual knowledge; or
Substantially similar prior incidents by the same third person that the owner/occupier had actual knowledge about and the owner/occupier knew or should have known that the third person would be on the premises.

(b) The injury sustained was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person’s wrongful conduct;
(c) The third person’s wrongful conduct was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner/occupier, which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of wrongful conduct on the premises that was substantially greater than the general risk of wrongful conduct in the vicinity of the premises;
(d) The owner/occupier failed to exercise ordinary care to remedy or mitigate the specific and known physical conduction and to otherwise keep the premises safe from the third person’s wrongful conduct; and
(e) The owner/occupier’s failure to exercise ordinary care was a proximate cause of the injury sustained. 
For a premises owner/occupier to be held liable to an injured licensee (e.g., a tenant’s social guest) for negligent security, the plaintiff must prove:
(a) The third person’s wrongful conduct was reasonably foreseeable because the owner/occupier had particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person;
(b) The injury sustained was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person’s wrongful conduct;
(c) The third person’s wrongful conduct was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the third person exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner/occupier, which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of wrongful conduct on the premises that was substantially greater than the general risk of wrongful conduct in the vicinity of the premises;
(d) The owner/occupier willfully and wantonly failed to exercise any care to remedy or mitigate the specific and known physical condition and to otherwise keep the premises safe from the third person’s wrongful conduct; and
(e) The owner/occupier’s failure to exercise any care was a proximate cause of the injury sustained. 
Moving forward, in no case will a premises owner/occupier be held liable for negligent security where:

The injured party was a trespasser 
The injury was sustained on premises not owned/occupied by the owner/occupier 
The wrongful conduct complained of did not occur on the premises and in a place from which the owner/occupier had the authority to exclude the third person 
The third-party wrongdoer was either a tenant under eviction or the guest of a tenant under eviction
The injured person came to the premises for the purpose of, or was engaged in committing a felony or theft 
The injury occurred at a single-family residence or 
The owner/occupier made any reasonable effort to provide information to law enforcement about a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person.

In order to assess whether the owner/occupier breached a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep persons on or around their premises safe from a third party’s wrongful conduct, courts and juries shall consider any relevant circumstances, including but not limited to:

The security measures employed at the premises at the time the injury occurred 
The need for any additional or other security measures
The practicality of additional or other security measures
Whether additional or other security measures would have prevented the injuries
The respective responsibilities of owners/occupiers with respect to the premises and government with respect to law enforcement and public safety.

Moreover, juries are now required to apportion fault among all parties, including the criminal wrongdoer. If a jury assigns more fault to the property owner than to the criminal wrongdoer, then the court is required to order a new trial. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an apportionment of fault is unreasonable if the percentage of fault assigned to the criminal wrongdoer(s) is less than the total percentage of fault assigned to all property owners, occupiers, managers, and security contractors. (New O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 – 51-3-57).
Practical Implications of the Negligent Security Legislation
Given the new guidelines, it is critical that property owners and managers ensure that regular inspections are taking place. If there are fences, the fences should be checked and documented monthly. The same goes for gates, warning/no trespassing signs, locks, cameras, lighting, or other physical conditions or installments on the property.
Property owners and managers should consider current security measures and whether additional or different measures might be appropriate. If multiple reports of similar crimes are received, then property owners and/or managers should consider asking a security consultant to perform a premises security assessment and to make any recommendations for additional or different security measures at the premises.
The process for tenants to communicate with the property manager about any security concerns or reports should be seamless and explained to all current and new tenants. The tenants should be encouraged to provide as much detail as possible, including about the specific location of the property where the crime or other security issue occurred. All such reports should be maintained for at least three years, and a line of communication should be started with local police about tenant security complaints.
Staff should be trained to recognize when a tenant reports concerns about an immediate threat to the tenant by another person and to notify the police immediately by calling 9-1-1. The staff should record such reports to the police and maintain the records for no less than three years. 
When Do These Changes Apply?
Thankfully, the majority of changes apply immediately and take effect even in existing cases. There are two exceptions for cases accruing on or after April 21 2025: 

New code section O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1, limiting recoverable special damages to the reasonable value of medically necessary care, allowing juries to consider the actual costs paid, and making letters of protection relevant and discoverable 
The negligent security legislation. 

“Accruing” means that the underlying incident giving rise to the claim occurred on or after the effective date.