Personal Injury

Columbus Jury Awards $650,000 to Driver Seriously Injured in Trucking Accident

January 29, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When it comes to trucking accidents, Georgia has what is known as a “direct action” rule. This means that if you are injured due to a commercial truck driver’s negligence, you can name not only the trucking company but also its insurance carrier as defendants. This is an exception to the normal rule. In a personal injury case arising from a normal car accident, you cannot directly sue the insurer. This is because it is generally considered unfair to the trucking company if the jury is made aware that an insurance company is paying for any potential damages.

Wallace v. Wiley Sanders Truck Lines, Inc.

Trucking companies are understandably unhappy with the direct action rule, especially after they lose a lawsuit. But their complaints often fall on deaf ears. Consider this recent case from Columbus, Georgia.

Court Allows Elevator Accident Case to Proceed to Trial

January 15, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a premises liability case—that is, a personal injury lawsuit arising when someone is injured on another person’s property—the plaintiff must generally prove that the property owner possessed “superior knowledge” of the defective condition that caused the alleged injury. In other words, the danger must be known to the owner but not to the plaintiff. This does not mean a property owner in every case can simply plead ignorance to a hazardous condition. Nor does it mean that he or she can try to shift the blame to a third party, such as a contractor who worked on the property.

Hill v. Cole CC Kenesaw GA, LLC

An ongoing Georgia case illustrates how the law may protect injury victims in certain situations. The plaintiff in this case worked in an office building. On the evening in question, the plaintiff and a co-worker entered an elevator to leave the building. The elevator stopped at a point such that it was not level with the floor. The plaintiff subsequently tripped, hit her on head on a railing inside the elevator, and had to be taken to the hospital.

Georgia Judges Disagree About Need for Expert Testimony in Defective Vehicle Case

January 8, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Expert testimony is often the key to winning a product liability lawsuit. Anyone can offer an opinion on the safety, or lack thereof, of a given product. But trial courts must go one step further and determine the qualifications of an expert before admitting his or her testimony. Under Georgia law, expert testimony must be “based on sufficient facts or data.” It must be the “the product of reliable principles and method,” and the expert must personally apply those principles and methods to the case at hand.

Moore v. Cottrell, Inc.

In a recent case, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony in a product liability lawsuit. The plaintiff was driving a car hauler with a two-level trailer. The hauler did not have a built-in ladder, but there was a portable ladder attached so the driver could access the upper level of the trailer.

Georgia Court Tosses $35M Verdict in Theme Park Beating Case

January 1, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Can a property owner be held liable for persons injured due to gang-related activity on or near their premises? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question. The appeals court was asked to review a $35 million verdict issued against a popular Cobb County theme park after a man was savagely beaten following an incident in the facility’s parking lot.

Six Flags Over Georgia II LP v. Martin

As the Court of Appeals explained in its opinion, the theme park is “located in a well-known, high-crime area, which has been the site of numerous instances of criminal gang activity.” There had also been a number of reported incidents where violence inside the park “spilled over” to outside locations.

Railroad Not Liable for Fatal Georgia Crossing Accident

December 28, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

According to statistics from the Federal Railroad Administration, there are more than 2,000 vehicle-train collisions at railroad crossings every year. When such accidents result in serious injury or death to innocent motorists, it is only logical the victims would want to hold the railroad responsible. But in some cases Georgia law may frustrate these efforts, as illustrated by a recent federal appeals court decision.

Long v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

This case involves a fatal accident that occurred at the Emory Street Crossing in Covington, Georgia. In 1974, the Georgia Department of Transportation contracted with a private railroad to install new gates and crossing signals at the Emory Street Crossing. Some years later, the railroad made some changes to the design, which resulted in a 36-foot gap between the installed protective devices and the main railroad line.

Georgia Court Holds Underinsured Motorist Policy Would Not “Duplicate” Prior Damages

December 18, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are seriously hurt in an accident, there are many types of legal injuries that may entitle you to compensation. In addition to paying your immediate medical bills following an accident, you may face future expenses for ongoing care. You may also face lost wages—again, present and future—as well as pain and suffering.

In car accident cases, if a negligent driver lacks sufficient insurance to compensate you for all of your injuries, your own insurance carrier may be responsible pursuant to uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. The exact amount of coverage you receive depends on the specific language of your policy. Unfortunately, litigation often arises between accident victims and their insurance carriers over the interpretation of such language.

Mabry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Georgia City Worker Not Responsible for Car Accident

November 1, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In Georgia, there are special rules for government employees when it comes to personal injury lawsuits. You cannot sue a municipal employee for any “tort involving the use of a covered motor vehicle while in the performance of his or her official duties.” Instead, you must sue the local government that employed the negligent worker. Georgia law waives sovereign immunity in such cases up to a certain amount of damages.

Guice v. Brown

Recently the Georgia Court of Appeals held that a trial court erred when it failed to dismiss a lawsuit arising from a car accident involving an employee of the City of Rockmart in Polk County. The defendant was installing road signs and driving a city-owned truck. While returning to his office, he decided to cut through a shopping center parking lot to avoid traffic. As the defendant exited the parking lot and attempted to cross several lanes of traffic, he was struck by the plaintiff’s car.

Driver Shot at Georgia Post Office Can Not Sue Federal Government for Damages

October 25, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are injured on someone else’s property, you can normally bring a premises liability claim if there is evidence the owner was somehow negligent. Unfortunately, the rules are much different for injury victims if they are injured on government property. Both the federal and Georgia governments are normally immune from lawsuits unless they consent to be sued. With respect to the federal government, Congress adopted the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which authorizes individuals to bring personal injury lawsuits against the government under state law in certain circumstances.

What do we mean by “certain circumstances”? The FTCA does contain a number of exceptions, which courts are required to strictly construe in favor of the federal government, as it is presumed to have immunity unless expressly waived. One of the most common exceptions applies to “discretionary” actions by government employees. This exception holds that a person may not file a personal injury claim against the government based on an employee’s “failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function.” In other words, if an employee fails to carry out a duty mandated by law, a person can file a claim under the FTCA. But if the employee has any discretion to act (or not act), the government cannot be held liable.

Fagg v. United States

Pitbull Attack Victims Face Hurdles in Georgia Courts

October 19, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Every year thousands of people are injured by dog bites. Sadly, some of these injuries are fatal. According to DogBites.org, a nonprofit organization that tracks “dangerous dog breeds” in the United States, 42 people died following dog attacks last year. The organization also said 74 percent of all fatal dog attacks reported between 2005 and 2014 could be attributed to just two breeds – pitbulls and rottweilers.

Some state courts have taken notice of the pitbull’s propensity for attacking people. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted “a strict liability standard in respect to the owning, harboring or control of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls in lieu of the traditional common law liability principles.” This means pitbull owners are presumed to have knowledge of their animal’s “dangerous” propensities.

Although a handful of Georgia localities restrict pitbulls, there is no statewide ban on owning such dogs. Despite the breed’s reported propensity for aggressive behavior, victims of pitbull attacks cannot recover damages from dog owners simply by pointing to statistics or actions by other state courts. Georgia law has very specific requirements when it comes to holding dog owners liable.

Appeals Court Says Insurance Check Created Binding Settlement Agreement

March 30, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

It is common for victims in automobile accidents to reach out-of-court settlements with negligent drivers or their insurance carriers. But victims should always be mindful of Georgia law governing such settlements. If you make a “final” demand to an insurer for money, and the insurer accepts and agrees to pay the specified amount, that is enough to create an enforceable legal contract even if the insurer subsequently seeks to negotiate additional terms. That is to say, even if you believe no “final” settlement agreement exists between you and an insurer, the courts may see it differently, as a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates.

Tillman v. Mejabi

The victim in this case suffered serious injuries in a 2011 automobile accident. There was no disputing the other driver was at fault. The victim’s attorney therefore sent a demand letter to the other driver’s insurance company, seeking to recover the maximum benefit available under the driver’s policy, which was $25,000. (The plaintiff’s actual damages were significantly higher, about $70,000.) The attorney’s letter said payment of the $25,000 would constitute “full and final settlement of this matter.”