A Practitioner’s Guide to Critical Differences Between These Jurisdictions
Introduction
Georgia and Hawaii share the same comparative negligence category (modified with approximately 50% bar), but their precise threshold calculations create the same meaningful difference seen across many state comparisons: Hawaii’s 51% bar permits recovery at exactly 50% fault, while Georgia’s 50% bar does not. Beyond this familiar distinction, Hawaii presents several unique features that dramatically affect personal injury litigation strategy. Its mandatory no-fault auto insurance system, statewide $375,000 cap on noneconomic damages (one of the few states to impose such a limit), broad dram shop liability through common law development, and strict liability dog bite statute create a jurisdiction with materially different exposure profiles than Georgia.
Key Takeaway: Hawaii’s noneconomic damage cap of $375,000 (HRS § 663-8.7) represents the most significant difference from Georgia, which has no such cap. This limitation fundamentally affects case valuation for serious injury claims. Hawaii’s no-fault auto insurance system and tort threshold requirements add additional complexity for motor vehicle cases.
Important Note: This guide addresses substantive law differences. Choice-of-law analysis and federal diversity jurisdiction implications are beyond this scope but must be considered for cases with multi-state contacts. Given the geographic distance between Georgia and Hawaii, cross-border cases typically involve tourism, product liability, or corporate defendant scenarios.
CRITICAL UPDATE: Georgia 2025 Tort Reform (SB 68)
Effective April 21, 2025, Georgia enacted comprehensive tort reform through Senate Bill 68. Practitioners must understand these changes: procedural provisions (anchoring, voluntary dismissal, bifurcation, discovery stay) apply immediately to pending cases, while substantive provisions (phantom damages, negligent security, seatbelt evidence) apply prospectively to causes of action or filings after the effective date.
Key Changes Summary
| Reform | Statute | Effective Date | Applies To |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anchoring Restrictions | § 9-10-184 | April 21, 2025 | All pending cases |
| Phantom Damages | § 51-12-1.1 | April 21, 2025 | Causes of action arising after 4/21/25 |
| Voluntary Dismissal Limits | § 9-11-41 | April 21, 2025 | All pending cases |
| Bifurcated Trials | § 51-12-15 | April 21, 2025 | All pending cases |
| Negligent Security Reform | §§ 51-3-50 to 51-3-57 | April 21, 2025 | Causes of action arising after 4/21/25 |
| Seatbelt Evidence | § 40-8-76.1 | April 21, 2025 | Actions filed after 4/21/25 |
| Discovery Stay (MTD) | § 9-11-12(j) | April 21, 2025 | All pending cases |
| Litigation Financing | SB 69 | January 1, 2026 | Per statute |
1. Anchoring Restrictions (O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184)
What Changed: Counsel may no longer argue, elicit testimony about, or reference the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages until after the close of evidence. Even then, arguments must be “rationally related” to the evidence presented.
Practical Impact: No references to celebrity salaries, luxury items, or arbitrary anchors during trial. No voir dire questions about noneconomic damage amounts.
Hawaii Comparison: Hawaii has no statutory anchoring restrictions. However, Hawaii’s $375,000 noneconomic damage cap renders aggressive anchoring strategies largely moot since recovery is statutorily limited regardless of arguments made.
2. Phantom Damages / Medical Expenses (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1)
What Changed: Special damages for medical expenses are now limited to the “reasonable value of medically necessary care” as determined by the trier of fact. The jury may consider amounts actually paid or necessary to satisfy charges.
LOP Discovery: Letters of protection and similar arrangements are now relevant and discoverable.
Hawaii Comparison: Hawaii follows the traditional collateral source rule. The full billed amount of medical expenses is generally recoverable, and evidence of insurance payments is generally inadmissible.
3. Negligent Security Reform (O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 to 51-3-57)
What Changed: Georgia created an entirely new statutory framework for negligent security claims with heightened foreseeability requirements, mandatory fault apportionment to criminal perpetrators, and multiple safe harbors.
Hawaii Comparison: Hawaii maintains traditional premises liability standards for negligent security under common law principles. No mandatory apportionment to criminal actors exists.
4. Seatbelt Evidence (O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1)
What Changed: Evidence of failure to wear a seatbelt is now admissible in Georgia on negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, and apportionment of fault.
Hawaii Comparison: Hawaii courts have addressed seatbelt evidence on a case-by-case basis under general negligence principles. The admissibility may depend on specific circumstances and whether non-use contributed to injuries.
1. Negligence Systems: The Familiar Threshold Difference
Georgia: Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Bar)
Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence system under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33:
The 50% Bar Rule: A plaintiff may recover damages only if their fault is less than 50%. At exactly 50% or greater fault, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovery.
Proportional Reduction: When recovery is permitted, damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.
Practical Application: If a plaintiff is found exactly 50% at fault, they recover nothing.
Hawaii: Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Bar)
Hawaii follows a modified comparative negligence system under HRS § 663-31:
The 51% Bar Rule: The statute provides that a plaintiff’s contributory negligence shall not bar recovery if such negligence is not greater than the negligence of the person or entity against whom recovery is sought. A plaintiff at exactly 50% fault can recover.
Proportional Reduction: Any damages allowed are diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.
Multiple Defendants: Plaintiff’s negligence is compared against the combined negligence of all defendants.
The Critical Difference
| Plaintiff Fault | Georgia Recovery | Hawaii Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| 49% | Yes (51% of damages) | Yes (51% of damages) |
| 50% | NO | Yes (50% of damages) |
| 51% | No | No |
Strategic Implication: Cases where plaintiff fault hovers around 50% favor Hawaii filing, though Hawaii’s noneconomic damage cap may offset this advantage for serious injury claims.
Joint and Several Liability
Georgia: Joint and several liability largely abolished; defendants generally liable only for their proportionate share.
Hawaii (HRS § 663-10.9): Modified joint and several liability. Each defendant is liable only for their proportionate share of damages based on their percentage of negligence, with exceptions for intentional torts, environmental torts, and certain other categories.
2. Statutes of Limitations: Key Differences
General Personal Injury
| Claim Type | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| General negligence | 2 years (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33) | 2 years (HRS § 657-7) |
| Property damage | 4 years (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-30) | 2 years (HRS § 657-7) |
| Wrongful death | 2 years (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33) | 2 years from death (HRS § 663-3) |
Notable Difference: Georgia provides a longer window for property damage claims (4 years vs. 2 years).
Medical Malpractice
Georgia (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71):
- General rule: 2 years from injury
- Statute of repose: 5 years maximum from negligent act
- Foreign object exception: 1 year from discovery, no repose limit
- Minors: Tolled until age 5, then 2 years (action must be filed by age 7 for injuries before age 5)
Hawaii (HRS § 657-7.3):
- General rule: 2 years from discovery or when injury should have been discovered
- Statute of repose: 6 years from the alleged act or omission
- Tolling for concealment: If provider knew of and concealed malpractice, statute tolled until discovery (even beyond 6 years)
- Minors: Special provisions; children under 10 have until their 10th birthday or 6 years from the act, whichever is longer
Critical Differences:
- Hawaii has a longer repose period (6 years vs. Georgia’s 5 years)
- Both have discovery rules that can extend the standard 2-year period
- Hawaii’s concealment exception provides broader protection than Georgia’s foreign object exception
Government Claims
Georgia:
- Ante litem notice: Generally within 12 months (O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5 for municipalities)
- Georgia Tort Claims Act governs state claims
Hawaii (HRS Chapter 662):
- State Tort Liability Act waives sovereign immunity
- State liable “to the same extent as a private individual” for employee torts
- No prejudgment interest and no punitive damages against state
- Discretionary function exception applies
- 2-year statute of limitations for most claims against the state
- Counties: Separate liability framework under HRS § 46-72
Critical Difference: Hawaii provides a relatively broad waiver of sovereign immunity with the state liable “to the same extent as a private individual,” though the prohibition on punitive damages and prejudgment interest limits recovery.
3. Damage Caps: Hawaii’s Significant Limitation
Noneconomic Damages
Georgia: No statutory cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury cases. Georgia’s medical malpractice cap was struck down as unconstitutional in Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt (2010), 286 Ga. 731.
Hawaii (HRS § 663-8.7): $375,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in nearly all personal injury cases, including medical malpractice.
Definition: “Pain and suffering” under the statute means actual physical pain and suffering as a proximate result of a physical injury.
Limited Exceptions: The cap does not apply to:
- Tort actions enumerated in HRS § 663-10.9(2), which includes certain intentional torts
- Cases involving multiple intentional tortfeasors
Critical Strategic Impact: Hawaii’s noneconomic damage cap fundamentally affects case valuation. A catastrophic injury case that might yield $2-5 million in noneconomic damages in Georgia is capped at $375,000 in Hawaii. This single factor often dominates forum selection analysis.
Economic Damages
Both States: No cap on economic damages (lost wages, medical expenses, future care costs). Full recovery permitted.
Punitive Damages
Georgia (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1):
- Standard: Willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or conscious indifference
- Cap: Generally $250,000 unless specific intent to harm, DUI involvement, or product liability
- Allocation: 75% to state treasury, 25% to plaintiff (unless product liability)
- Bifurcation available
Hawaii:
- Standard: Requires wanton or reckless conduct showing conscious indifference to consequences
- No statutory cap on punitive damages (due process limits apply)
- No state allocation requirement
- Must bear reasonable relationship to compensatory damages
Comparison:
| Factor | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| Noneconomic cap | None | $375,000 |
| Punitive cap | $250,000 (exceptions) | None (due process limits) |
| Punitive state allocation | 75% | None |
4. Auto Insurance and No-Fault System
Georgia: Traditional Fault State
Minimum Liability Requirements (O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11):
- $25,000 per person bodily injury
- $50,000 per accident bodily injury
- $25,000 property damage
- Written as 25/50/25
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist: Not mandatory but must be offered; can be rejected in writing.
No-Fault: Georgia is a traditional fault state with no PIP requirement.
Hawaii: No-Fault State
Minimum Requirements (HRS § 431:10C-301, as updated January 1, 2026):
- $10,000 PIP (Personal Injury Protection) per person
- $40,000 per person/$80,000 per accident bodily injury liability
- $20,000 property damage liability
- Written as 40/80/20 plus $10,000 PIP
Note: Hawaii increased its minimum liability limits from 20/40/10 to 40/80/20 effective January 1, 2026.
PIP Coverage Details:
- Covers medical expenses and rehabilitation costs regardless of fault
- Covers lost wages
- Death benefits available ($25,000 to $100,000)
- Funeral benefits ($2,000 minimum)
Tort Threshold: To step outside no-fault and pursue pain and suffering damages, injuries must exceed one of these thresholds:
- Medical expenses exceeding $5,000
- Significant and permanent loss of use of a body part or function
- Significant and permanent disfigurement
- Death
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist: Not mandatory but must be offered; minimum of $20,000 per person if elected.
Comparison
| Coverage | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| Bodily injury (per person) | $25,000 | $40,000 |
| Bodily injury (per accident) | $50,000 | $80,000 |
| Property damage | $25,000 | $20,000 |
| PIP required | No | Yes ($10,000) |
| System type | Fault | No-Fault |
| Tort threshold | None | $5,000 medical or permanent injury |
Practical Implications:
- Hawaii’s no-fault system provides immediate medical payment regardless of fault
- Hawaii’s new 40/80/20 minimums (effective January 2026) now provide higher liability coverage than Georgia’s 25/50/25
- Hawaii’s tort threshold can bar pain and suffering claims for minor injuries
- Hawaii’s $375,000 noneconomic cap limits recovery even when threshold is met
5. Dog Bite Liability
Georgia: Traditional Negligence with Statutory Elements
Under O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7, Georgia imposes liability for dog bites when:
- The dog is vicious or dangerous
- The owner knew or should have known of this propensity
- The owner was negligent in managing the dog
First Bite Context: Knowledge of dangerousness can be proven through prior incidents, breed characteristics, or other evidence of vicious propensity.
Hawaii: Statutory Liability with Interpretive Complexity
Hawaii’s dog bite law under HRS § 663-9 provides:
Statutory Language: “The owner or harborer of an animal, if the animal proximately causes either personal or property damage to any person, shall be liable in damages to the person injured regardless of the animal owner’s or harborer’s lack of scienter of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal.”
Judicial Interpretation: Despite the statutory language suggesting strict liability, Hawaii courts in Hubbell v. Iseke, 727 P.2d 1131 (Haw. App. 1986), interpreted the statute to require proof of negligence, holding that the statute merely clarifies that scienter (knowledge of dangerous propensities) need not be proven, but negligent conduct must still be shown.
Practical Application: Hawaii operates as a modified strict liability state: owner is liable without proving knowledge of dangerousness, but some showing of negligent conduct or failure to control is generally required.
Defenses Available (HRS § 663-9.1):
- Animal was teased, tormented, or abused without owner’s involvement
- Animal was acting in self-defense or defense of another
- Victim was trespassing
Comparison
| Factor | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | Negligence + knowledge | Liability without scienter; negligence still required |
| First bite defense | Potentially available | Limited (no scienter required) |
| Covers non-bite injuries | Limited | Yes, all injuries |
| Provocation defense | Yes | Yes |
| Trespass defense | Yes | Yes |
| SOL | 2 years | 2 years |
Strategic Consideration: Hawaii’s elimination of the scienter requirement provides an advantage for plaintiffs who cannot prove owner’s prior knowledge of dangerousness, but proof of negligent conduct remains necessary.
6. Dram Shop and Social Host Liability
Georgia: Statutory Dram Shop Liability
Georgia provides for dram shop liability under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-40:
Commercial Vendors:
- Liable for selling, furnishing, or serving alcohol to persons under 21
- Liable for serving noticeably intoxicated persons when the provider knows the person will soon drive
- Requires knowledge or reasonable cause to believe the condition exists
Third-Party Claims: Injured third parties may recover against the establishment that over-served.
Hawaii: Common Law Dram Shop Liability
Hawaii developed dram shop liability through common law rather than statute, primarily through Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw. 1980):
Basis for Liability: Violation of Hawaii’s liquor control laws (HRS § 281-78), which prohibit:
- Serving alcohol to minors (under 21)
- Serving alcohol to any person who appears to be under the influence
Key Features:
- Third parties injured by intoxicated patrons can recover from establishments that served alcohol in violation of liquor laws
- Intoxicated patrons themselves generally cannot recover against the establishment that served them
- Liability extends to serving visibly intoxicated persons
Social Host Liability: Limited in Hawaii. Social hosts may face liability for knowingly serving alcohol to minors, but liability for serving intoxicated adults at private events is minimal.
Comparison
| Factor | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Statutory (O.C.G.A. § 51-1-40) | Common law + liquor code |
| Liability for serving minors | Yes | Yes |
| Liability for serving intoxicated adults | Yes (if will drive) | Yes (if visibly intoxicated) |
| Patron self-recovery | No | No |
| Social host liability | Limited | Limited (mainly minors) |
Both states provide meaningful dram shop liability, though the specific elements and proof requirements differ. Georgia’s statutory framework provides clearer standards, while Hawaii’s common law approach allows for judicial development.
7. Sovereign Immunity and Government Liability
Georgia
Georgia Tort Claims Act (O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq.):
- Waives immunity for state torts up to $1,000,000 per person, $3,000,000 per occurrence
- Extensive exceptions including discretionary functions
- Requires written ante litem notice
Municipal Liability (O.C.G.A. § 36-33-1 et seq.):
- Waived for ministerial acts
- Discretionary function immunity retained
- Ante litem notice required (generally 6-12 months)
Hawaii
State Tort Liability Act (HRS Chapter 662):
- Broad waiver: State liable “to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances”
- No prejudgment interest recoverable
- No punitive damages against the state
- Discretionary function exception (similar to federal FTCA)
- 2-year statute of limitations
Exceptions (HRS § 662-15):
- Discretionary function immunity
- Intentional torts (assault, battery, false imprisonment, etc.)
- Combatant activities of National Guard
- Tax assessment and collection claims
Counties (HRS § 46-72):
- 2-year statute of limitations for claims against counties
- Generally subject to same principles as state claims
Comparison
| Factor | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| State cap | $1,000,000 per person | No specific monetary cap |
| Per incident cap | $3,000,000 | No specific cap |
| Prejudgment interest | Potentially available | Not available |
| Punitive damages | Limited availability | Not available |
| Discretionary immunity | Yes | Yes |
Strategic Consideration: Hawaii’s broad waiver without specific monetary caps could provide higher recovery potential than Georgia’s capped system, but the prohibition on prejudgment interest and punitive damages limits overall recovery.
8. Wrongful Death and Survival Actions
Georgia
Wrongful Death (O.C.G.A. § 51-4-1 et seq.):
- Brought by surviving spouse; if none, children; if none, parents; if none, estate
- Recovers the “full value of the life” of the decedent
- Includes economic and non-economic damages
- Does not recover decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering (separate survival action required)
Survival Action: Estate may pursue damages decedent could have recovered had they survived.
Statute of Limitations: 2 years from date of death.
Hawaii
Wrongful Death (HRS § 663-3):
- Brought by legal representative of deceased or anyone entitled to damages
- Beneficiaries include those dependent on decedent, spouse, reciprocal beneficiaries, children, parents
- Recoverable damages include loss of support, services, love, affection, and companionship
Survival Action:
- Estate may pursue any action decedent could have maintained
- Includes conscious pain and suffering before death
Special Death Benefits (HRS § 663-3):
- Specific provisions for minor children
- Loss of consortium for spouse/reciprocal beneficiary
- Mental anguish of surviving family members
Statute of Limitations: 2 years from date of death.
Key Differences
| Factor | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| Who brings suit | Statutory beneficiaries | Legal representative or entitled person |
| Measure of damages | Full value of life | Loss of support/services + consortium |
| Pain and suffering (survival) | Separate action | Included in survival action |
| Noneconomic cap applies | No | Yes ($375,000) |
| SOL | 2 years from death | 2 years from death |
Critical Note: Hawaii’s $375,000 noneconomic damage cap applies to wrongful death claims, significantly limiting recovery for loss of consortium and similar noneconomic damages.
9. Medical Malpractice: Special Considerations
Georgia Requirements
Affidavit Requirement (O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1):
- Expert affidavit required at filing (contemporaneous filing)
- Must identify one negligent act and state that the affiant believes the act is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury
- Expert must be competent to testify
Comparative Negligence: Modified (50% bar) applies.
Damage Caps: None (struck down as unconstitutional).
Hawaii Requirements
Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel: Hawaii previously required submission to a screening panel before filing suit. While this requirement has been eliminated for most cases, it represented a significant procedural difference.
Expert Testimony: Required to establish standard of care and breach, but no pre-filing affidavit requirement.
Comparative Negligence: Modified (51% bar) applies.
Damage Caps: $375,000 noneconomic damage cap applies to medical malpractice claims.
Comparison
| Factor | Georgia | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| Expert affidavit at filing | Required | Not required |
| Screening panel | No | No (eliminated) |
| Noneconomic damage cap | None | $375,000 |
| Discovery rule | Limited | Yes |
| Statute of repose | 5 years | 6 years |
Critical Strategic Consideration: Hawaii’s $375,000 noneconomic damage cap fundamentally limits recovery in medical malpractice cases. A catastrophic injury case with $2 million in pain and suffering value in Georgia is worth only $375,000 in noneconomic damages in Hawaii (plus full economic damages). This often makes Georgia the preferred forum for serious medical malpractice claims.
10. Forum Selection Considerations
Factors Favoring Georgia Forum
- No noneconomic damage cap: Georgia permits unlimited noneconomic damages; Hawaii caps at $375,000
- Traditional fault system: No tort threshold for auto cases
- Longer property damage SOL: 4 years vs. 2 years
- Serious injury cases: Catastrophic injuries warrant Georgia’s uncapped system
Factors Favoring Hawaii Forum
- 50% fault recovery: Plaintiff at exactly 50% fault recovers in Hawaii, not Georgia
- Longer medical malpractice repose: 6 years vs. 5 years
- No punitive damage cap: Hawaii has no statutory cap (due process limits apply)
- No punitive state allocation: Plaintiff keeps 100% (vs. 25% in Georgia)
- Modified dog bite liability: No scienter requirement (though negligence still required)
- Broad government liability waiver: No specific monetary cap
Practical Considerations
For Middle Georgia practitioners representing clients with Hawaii connections:
- Tourism injuries: Georgia residents injured while vacationing in Hawaii face the noneconomic cap
- Product liability: Corporate defendants with Hawaii connections may require Hawaii law analysis
- Noneconomic damage cap dominates analysis: For serious injury cases, this single factor often determines optimal forum
- Hawaii’s tort threshold: Minor auto injuries may not meet the $5,000 medical expense threshold for pain and suffering recovery
11. Comparative Summary Table
| Category | Georgia | Hawaii | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative Negligence | 50% bar (less than) | 51% bar (not greater than) | Hawaii (50% recovery allowed) |
| Noneconomic Damage Cap | None | $375,000 | Georgia |
| General PI SOL | 2 years | 2 years | Equal |
| Property Damage SOL | 4 years | 2 years | Georgia |
| Med Mal Repose | 5 years | 6 years | Hawaii |
| Dog Bite Standard | Negligence + knowledge | Liability without scienter | Hawaii |
| Dram Shop Liability | Statutory | Common law | Both available |
| Auto Insurance System | Fault (25/50/25) | No-Fault (40/80/20 + PIP) | Hawaii (minimums) |
| Punitive Damage Cap | $250,000 (exceptions) | None | Hawaii |
| Punitive State Allocation | 75% | None | Hawaii |
| Government Claims | Capped ($1M/$3M) | No specific cap | Hawaii |
Sources
Georgia Code (O.C.G.A.):
- § 51-12-33 (Comparative Negligence)
- § 9-3-33 (Personal Injury SOL)
- § 9-3-71 (Medical Malpractice SOL)
- § 51-2-7 (Dog Bite Liability)
- § 51-1-40 (Dram Shop Liability)
- § 51-12-5.1 (Punitive Damages)
- § 50-21-20 et seq. (Georgia Tort Claims Act)
- § 33-7-11 (Auto Insurance Requirements)
- Senate Bill 68 (2025 Tort Reform)
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS):
- § 663-31 (Comparative Negligence)
- § 657-7 (Personal Injury SOL)
- § 657-7.3 (Medical Malpractice SOL)
- § 663-8.7 (Noneconomic Damage Cap)
- § 663-9 (Animal Liability/Dog Bite)
- § 663-9.1 (Animal Liability Exceptions)
- § 281-78 (Liquor Control/Dram Shop Basis)
- Chapter 662 (State Tort Liability Act)
- § 46-72 (County Claims)
- § 431:10C-301 (Auto Insurance Requirements)
- § 663-3 (Wrongful Death)
Case Law:
- Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt, 286 Ga. 731 (2010)
- Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw. 1980)
- Hubbell v. Iseke, 727 P.2d 1131 (Haw. App. 1986)
- Bertelmann v. Taas Associates (discussed in 11 UH L. Rev. 277)
This guide is current as of January 2026. Practitioners should verify current statutory language and recent case law developments before relying on this information for specific cases.