Personal Injury

Insurer Not Liable for Fight Over Ownership of Car

April 8, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Georgia law requires all drivers to carry auto insurance. The law sets certain minimum requirements for coverage. For example, a policy must include provide at least $25,000 in coverage for “bodily injury” to one person, or $50,000 to cover multiple persons injured in the same accident. Remember, these are only minimum requirements, and many drivers choose to purchase insurance policies with higher coverage limits.

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Marshall

But insurance does not cover an accident just because your car may be involved in some way. A recent Georgia case illustrates this point. The case actually began as a dispute over the ownership of a car. In 2010, a boyfriend purchased a car for his girlfriend. She had poor credit and needed him to register the car in his name so she could obtain a loan to finance the purchase. Although the girlfriend subsequently made the loan payments, the vehicle remained legally titled in the name of the boyfriend.

Appeals Court Reinstates “Toxic Tort” Claim Over Mold-Infested Apartment

March 31, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Personal injury claims are not always based on accidents or direct actions by a negligent party. In so-called toxic tort cases, for instance, a defendant may be held liable for a hazardous health condition that contributes to a victim’s injuries. In such cases, a plaintiff must establish causation through expert medical testimony.

McCarney v. PA Lex Glen, LLC

In one recent case, the Georgia Court of Appeals reinstated a toxic tort claim against a landlord accused by a tenant of failing to properly treat a major mold infestation. According to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, he rented an apartment from the defendant for about a year. Towards the end of his tenancy, the plaintiff learned from his neighbors there might be mold in their apartments. The plaintiff subsequently discovered a “black substance” covering several surfaces in and around his unit.

School District Faces Trial Over Man Injured by Cannon at Football Game

March 18, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Georgia law prohibits individuals from carrying “weapons” in any public school. There are exceptions for law enforcement who need to carry firearms in carrying out their official duties. But the Georgia legislature has made it clear that schools are supposed to be “gun free zones.”

Boatright v. Copeland

There was an interesting personal injury lawsuit recently before the Georgia Court of Appeals. The plaintiff was “assisting in loading and firing a cannon owned by the Appling County School District.” The cannon was used outdoors during Appling County High School’s football games. The plaintiff was compressing gunpowder in the cannon with a rod when the cannon suddenly discharged, causing permanent injury to the plaintiff’s right hand. The plaintiff subsequently sued the school district, as well as the superintendent of schools and individual school board members.

When Can You Sue a Negligent Driver for Punitive Damages?

February 29, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Punitive damages are designed to punish a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. Unlike economic damages, which are supposed to compensate the plaintiff for his or her losses, punitive damages are meant to have a deterrent effect on an especially irresponsible defendant. To that end, under Georgia law a jury may only award punitive damages when there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.”

Corbett v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.

In many cases, a judge will not even allow a jury to consider punitive damages unless the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence that meets the statutory threshold. For example, a federal judge in Atlanta recently granted summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages to two defendants in an ongoing truck accident case. While this does not affect other elements of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the judge made it clear this was not a case where punitive damages should even be an option.

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