Auto Accidents

Georgia Appeals Court Clarifies Insurer’s “Uninsured Motorist” Liability in Multi-Defendant Accident Case

November 9, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Multi-vehicle accidents can pose complex questions regarding liability and insurance. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed such a case. The appeals court rejected a trial court’s decision to summarily rule in favor of an insurance company that argued it should not have to provide “underinsured motorist” benefits to a policyholder.

Wade v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Company

The plaintiff in this case was injured in a multi-vehicle accident. The plaintiff initially sued five defendants–three other drivers involved in the accident, the employer of one of those drivers, and the parent of another driver. Three of the five defendants settled for a total of $30,000, an amount less than the maximum limits on their respective insurance policies. The other two defendants settled for an amount equal to their policy limits.

Parents of 13-Year-Old Amputee Victim Allowed to Pursue Negligence Claims Against Vehicle Manufacturer

September 13, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Bad Boy Enterprises manufactures and sells golf carts modified to function as off-road vehicles. These “Bad Boy Buggies” are primarily marketed to outdoor enthusiasts and hunters. They are also the subject of an ongoing federal lawsuit in Georgia over their safety.

The plaintiffs in this case are the parents of a minor. The child was 13 years old when her parents allowed her to operate a Bad Boy Buggy owned by a family friend. The child had driven the vehicle on several prior occasions, always with her parents permission. On the day in question, she was driving the buggy around a looping gravel driveway with a friend sitting in the passenger seat.

According to court records, the buggy would suddenly accelerate even when constant pressure was maintained on the accelerator pedal. On this particular day, the child applied the brake as the vehicle entered a turn. The vehicle continued to accelerate, however, and eventually tipped over, severing the child’s left foot and part of her leg.

Georgia Appeals Court Confirms “Right of Way” at Four-Way Stop Intersections

August 23, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Sometimes even judges get confused about basic traffic laws. In June, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict after finding the judge improperly instructed jurors about the law governing the right-of-way at a four-way stop sign. The case arose from a traffic accident in Gwinnett County where each driver blamed the other.

The plaintiff in this case testified that he arrived at the intersection–which had a four-way stop sign–first, stopped, and then proceeded to execute a left-hand turn. The defendant’s truck, approaching from the cross-road, failed to yield the stop sign and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle in the intersection. The defendant, in contrast, said he arrived at the intersection a few seconds before the plaintiff and in fact made a complete stop before entering the intersection.

The police officer who took the accident report said the defendant was at fault for the accident, because “by state law when you both stop at the same time, you have to yield to the vehicle to your right.” At trial, however, the judge said this was wrong. Instead, the judge charged the jury as follows:

Georgia Appeals Court Reinstates “Tandem Driving” Lawsuit

August 6, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

On September 25, 2008, a driver heading west on Jackson Road (Georgia Highway 155) in Spalding County was struck by a white van traveling–well past the posted 55-mph speed limit–south on Johnny Cut Road. The subsequent collision killed the van operator and seriously injured the innocent driver of the other vehicle. Understandably, the victim filed a lawsuit to recover damages for his injuries.

What makes this case unusual is one of the defendants was the driver of a third vehicle. The victim identified this vehicle as running about 20-30 feet behind the van that collided with him. Subsequent evidence revealed the third vehicle had been following the van to a gas station. The victim testified the two vehicles were traveling at 65-70 miles per hour and likely ran a stop sign just prior to the accident. The driver of the third vehicle claimed he was only traveling around 40-45 miles per hour and that he stopped at the stop sign in question.

Georgia law recognizes joint liability of parties based on “tandem driving.” Put simply, if two cars are speeding together–say, in an illegal drag race–and one car causes an accident, the driver of the other car may also be held liable even if he or she was not a party to the accident. As the Georgia Court of Appeals has explained in Baxter v. Wakefield, liability exists when “there is an understanding” between the drivers “to reach a common destination and in doing so illegal speed is used and the cars are driven so closely together as to be practically in tandem.”

Georgia Appeals Court Reviews Tragic Car-Truck Accident, Finds Neither Driver Responsible

August 4, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Sometimes there’s a deadly automobile accident where neither driver is legally at fault. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently made just such a finding with regards to a June 2010 highway accident just outside of Albany. While a trial judge thought there were issues for a jury to sort out, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously agreed the undisputed facts showed neither party could be held legally responsible.

The accident involved a woman driving her car on a northbound lane. A truck in the southbound lane suddenly veered across the turning lane and struck the car. The woman driving the car suffered a broken leg and other injuries. The man driving the truck sustained a head injury and could not recount the details of the accident to a police. It was later discovered the truck driver had suffered a stroke just before the accident, and he died a few weeks later.

The automobile driver sued the truck driver’s estate for negligence. The truck driver’s executor responded by filing a negligence counterclaim against the automobile driver. The trial judge refused both parties’ motions for summary judgment but allowed them to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals.

Driver Exclusions Can Deny Accident Victims Access to Damages

June 14, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Under Georgia law, an automobile insurance policy may exclude certain individuals from coverage. For example, if you purchase insurance coverage for your vehicle, you may want to exclude your child from coverage if he has a poor driving record; such an exclusion can improve your own insurance rate. The courts will generally honor an exclusion if it is clear and unambiguous.

A recent decision by a federal judge in Macon helps explain this subject. The underlying case arose from a fatal December 2006 automobile accident. One person–the driver deemed solely responsible for the accident–died while another man suffered serious injuries. In 2008, the surviving injury victim filed a negligence suit in Dooley County Superior Court against the estate of the deceased driver. The victim also sued the driver’s parents, who owned the car, for negligent entrustment, that is negligently providing their son with access to their automobile.

The parents held an insurance policy on their automobile from Progressive Max Insurance Company. About a month before the accident, the father signed a “Name Driver Exclusion Election” listing his son as an excluded driver. The language of the exclusion stated, “No coverage is provided for any claim arising from an accident or loss involving a motorized vehicle being operated by an excluded driver.” This included any claims made against the parents or their son for “vicarious liability” arising from the son’s operation of the vehicle. Vicarious liability refers to the responsibility of a superior for the acts of his agent. This commonly arises in cases where a company is liable for negligent acts committed by an employee.

Georgia Law Does Not Require Used Car Dealers to Look for Defective Tires?

May 31, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Is a used car dealer responsible for selling a van with defective tires? A divided Georgia Court of Appeals recently weighed in on this question, declaring that dealers are not negligent when they fail to perform a basic inspection that would show a vehicle they sold had the wrong make and size of tires. car crash.jpg

The court’s decision arose from a fatal 2008 accident involving a Chevrolet Sport passenger van. In 2006, Redding Swainsboro Ford Lincoln Mercury acquired the van as a customer trade-in. Redding then sold the van wholesale to another dealer, S&S Auto Sales. S&S in turn sold the van to a passenger transportation company. The company used the van to transport workers to a poultry processing plant. In May 2008, the driver lost control of the van when the tread belt on the left-front tire separated. The van crossed the opposing traffic lane and crashed into a tree. One of the eight passengers died and the other seven suffered serious injuries.

According to the passengers, the tire that failed was designed for a smaller passenger vehicle. The van required light truck tires. Neither the van’s current owner nor the two used car dealers that previously owned the vehicle noticed this defect.

Georgia Court Says Insurer’s “Promise” Enough to Form Binding Settlement in Personal Injury Cases

May 24, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Following an automobile accident, it’s common for injured parties to seek compensation, either from the person who caused the accident or their insurance company. It’s usually in an insurance company’s interest to settle accident claims without litigation. But a settlement is predicated on both sides coming to a mutual agreement. The insurance company shouldn’t be allowed to pull a “bait-and-switch” and change the terms of a settlement unilaterally.

Unfortunately, that’s just what happened in a March decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals. A sharply divided seven-judge panel upheld a “settlement” between an accident victim and an insurance company where the latter never actually agreed to the proposed terms. Nonetheless, a majority of the appeals court declared there was a binding contract.

Attorney vs. Insurance Company

Is it Illegal to Flash Your Headlights at Other Motorist to Warn of Speed Traps? Florida Man Wins Suit that Allows Motorists to Flash Lights

November 11, 2011 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

At some point you or someone you know has probably flashed their headlights into oncoming traffic to warn them of an upcoming speed trap, and probably never worried about the fact there may be a crime being committed. But is it really illegal? This situation is exactly what got Erich Campbell, a college student from Land O’ Lakes, Florida, ticketed in December of 2009. Though Mr. Campbell felt he was just being helpful, the Florida Highway Patrol did not share his sentiment, and wrote him a citation for flashing his lights to warn oncoming of traffic of a speed trap. He told the Florida Highway Patrol at the time that he had no idea providing a warning to fellow motorist was a violation of any laws.

After researching the situation, Mr. Campbell decided he was not going to take the ticket lying down, and felt what he did was completely permissible under the law. In September he filed a lawsuit on his own behalf, as well as for every other in driver in Florida ticketed for the same violation over the previous six years. The lawsuit accused police of misinterpreting state law and violating motorists’ free speech rights. He further claimed that there was no law on the books that would prevent him from warning other motorist of police up ahead. Campbell’s attorney said he felt that police were misinterpreting a law that’s meant to ban drivers from having strobe lights in their cars or official looking blue police lights. Campbell said that most of the tickets that were issued were, “Frustrated police officers who feel they were disrespected. When someone comes along and rats them out, they take offense to it.”

After Dog is Run Over and Killed, Family Receives Bill for Bumper Damage From State Farm

November 4, 2011 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

State Farm Insurance made an interesting decision when they recently asked a family to pay for repairing a broken bumper after their dog was struck by a vehicle and killed. Kim Flemming’s 12 year-old yellow Labrador Jake was struck by the vehicle in the family’s quite neighborhood just outside of Aurora, Ontario. Ms. Flemming had just gotten home from work when a man came to the door to let her know he had run over the family pet. “I got to the road and he was dying,” Fleming told local media. “He died in my arms.”

Just as the Flemming’s were beginning to get over the tragedy they received a bill from State Farm insurance in the amount $1,648.95 for the man’s bumper who ran over Jake. The letter, that included five pages of documentation and three pages of photographs, said that through their investigation they determined Ms. Flemming to be “100-per-cent responsible” for the damage to the vehicle, and stated, “As such, we are looking to you for reimbursement.” The bill included costs for parts and labor for replacing the bumper, as well as the cost of the rental car for the person who ran over Jake. State Farm spokesman John Bordigon responded to media questions over the bill with little compassion stating, “They could have made sure their dog wasn’t free on the roadway.”