Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Atlanta Court Orders Hearing to Determine Whether Juror Bias Tainted $7 Million Bus Accident Verdict

October 23, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In any civil trial, both sides have the right to have their case heard by an impartial jury. As you may know, before any trial begins, the attorneys for both sides have an opportunity to question potential jurors–a process known as voir dire–and challenge any juror whose impartiality may be reasonably questioned.

What happens if the jurors lie or omit potentially critical information regarding their background? Does their participation in the final verdict taint the outcome? Can the losing side ask for a new trial based on the assumption they would have challenged the juror for cause had they known the whole truth?

Torres v. First Transit, Inc.

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Couple May Pursue Lawsuit Against Sperm Bank on Consumer Fraud–But Not “Wrongful Birth” of Their Child

October 16, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In 2001, a couple purchased donor sperm from a sperm bank so that they could conceive a child. The sperm bank represented that it carefully screened all of its donors, to the point where it only accepted about 5% of potential donors. More to the point, the sperm bank told the couple here that the sample they purchased–identified as Donor #9623–was one of their “best” donors.

That turned out to be not quite true. In fact, Donor #9623 made a number of false and misleading statements during the screening process. For example, although he said he had no criminal history, he had multiple prior arrests for burglary, trespassing, and drunk driving. The donor also lied about his educational background.

Such omissions may not seem like a big deal, but the donor also failed to disclose that he had a history of mental illness, for which he required multiple hospitalizations. The couple who purchased the donor’s sperm only learned of this years later, after the child they conceived was born and had started to manifest symptoms of mental disorders himself. The child also has a genetic blood disorder that was not acquired from the mother.

Federal Judges Ask Georgia Supreme Court to Resolve Questions Regarding “Bad Faith” Insurance Laws

October 9, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When an auto insurer unreasonably refuses to settle a personal injury claim against one of its policyholders, the policyholder can turn around and sue the insurance company for acting in “bad faith.” If successful, a bad-faith lawsuit can mean the insurer is liable for the full amount of any judgment that the accident victim obtained against the policyholder.

Whiteide v. Geico Indemnity Company

A federal appeals court recently asked the Georgia Supreme Court to resolve a number of legal questions arising from a successful bad-faith coverage lawsuit. The case was tried before a jury in federal court following Georgia state law. In situations like this, a federal court may opt to “certify” unresolved legal questions to the state’s supreme court before proceeding further.

Insurance Company Settlement Offer Rejected Due to Restricted Check

October 2, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

There is a common scenario that plays out following an auto accident. First, the injured driver sends a demand letter to the negligent driver’s insurance company, offering to settle for the limits of the latter’s policy. Next, the insurance company either accepts the offer unconditionally–usually by sending a check–or makes a counter-offer. A counter-offer constitutes a rejection of the original offer, so there is no agreement. But if the insurer does send the check, that is often enough to create a binding settlement, which the insurer and its insured may seek to enforce in court.

Claxton v. Adams

What if the insurance company sends a check, but it cannot be cashed right away? Is there still a binding settlement? Not according to a recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Convenience Store in High-Crime Area Not Liable for Attack on Customer

September 30, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The typical premises liability claim involves a customer who is injured slipping and falling in the aisle of a store. In such cases, the legal question is whether or not the store owner breached its legal duty to keep its premises “in a reasonably safe condition” for invited members of the public. The owner is not, however, required to absolutely guarantee a patron’s safety.

ABH Corporation v. Montgomery

In some cases, a store owner’s duty may extend possible criminal acts that occur on its premises. But this can be much trickier to prove than a simple slip and fall. This is because the victim must prove that the store owner had “reason to anticipate” the criminal act and failed to exercise “ordinary care” to protect the public. The mere fact that a crime occurred, or even that the neighborhood may be considered more prone to criminal activity, is not enough to establish the store owner’s legal liability.

Court of Appeals Rejects Lawsuit Against Psychiatrist Who Treated Drunk Driver Just Before Fatal Crash

September 25, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

It goes without saying that a drunk driver can be held liable in a civil lawsuit for injuring someone while on the road. In some cases, Georgia law even makes it possible for an accident victim to sue a bar or restaurant for serving the drunk driver. But what about a mental health professional who treated the drunk driver? Can they also be held responsible for failing to take action to prevent their patient from getting behind the wheel?

Stanley v. Garrett

The Georgia Court of Appeals addressed these questions in a recent decision, Stanley v. Garrett. This case involved a man named Fettig, who had a history of alcoholism and depression. The defendant in this case was Fettig’s psychiatrist.

Insurance Company Faces “Bad Faith” Lawsuit Over Failure to Settle Drunk Driving Accident Claim

September 18, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Georgia law requires insurance companies to act in good faith when resolving auto accident claims. For example, if you are injured in an accident caused by another driver’s clear negligence, the other driver’s insurance company is expected to make a good-faith effort to negotiate a settlement, especially when your damages meets or exceeds the limits of the actual policy. Conversely, if the insurer acts in bad faith, you can file a lawsuit and seek additional damages.

Kemper v. Equity Insurance Company

For example, a federal appeals court recently revived a bad-faith lawsuit brought against an insurance company by the victim of a motorcycle accident. The plaintiff in this case, Kemper v. Equity Insurance Company, was driving her bike down a road in Coweta County, Georgia. Another driver, who it turned out was intoxicated, crossed the centerline of the road and crashed into the plaintiff, causing her serious injuries.

Georgia Court Tosses $100,000 Award of Future Medical Expenses in Car Accident Lawsuit

September 11, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

A jury verdict in favor of the victim is often not the “last word” in a personal injury case. Aside from any appeal the defense might bring, the trial judge can also issue what is known as a “judgment notwithstanding the verdict” (j.n.o.v.) This basically means the judge finds that, based on the evidence presented during the trial, there can only be “one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment.” Put another way, j.n.o.v. is only appropriate when it is not a “close case” and the evidence–including any reasonable inferences someone could make from such evidence–inevitably leads to a conclusion that differed from that of the jury.

Gary v. Brown

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Gary v. Brown, illustrates the type of case in which a court may grant a j.n.o.v. This personal injury lawsuit involved a 2014 auto accident. The defendant rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff did not initially seek medical treatment following the collision.

11th Circuit Rejects Negligence Lawsuit Over Controlled Burn at Georgia Military Base

September 4, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

There is a well-established rule in American law that you cannot sue the government without its consent. This rule, known as sovereign immunity, imposes a high bar for anyone who wants to sue the government for the negligent acts of its employees. Basically, unless Congress adopts an express exemption to the sovereign immunity rule, the injured victim is out of luck.

Fortunately, Congress has adopted a fairly broad waiver of sovereign immunity for personal injury claims. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows individuals to sue the federal government for negligent acts, but there are multiple exceptions to this waiver. One of the most notable is the “discretionary-function” exception.

Under this exception, you cannot sue the federal government based on an employee’s “exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function.” In simpler terms, if the law gives a federal employee any amount of discretion on how to do their job, you cannot bring a claim under the FTCA based on how that discretion is used–even if the employee was negligent. However, if the employee failed to follow a specific federal law, regulation, or policy, then the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity may still apply, as that does involve any discretionary function.

11th Circuit: Atlanta Condo Managers Failed to Promptly Inform Insurer of Emlpoyee’s Sexual Assault

August 31, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are involved in a car accident, you should always promptly notify your auto insurance carrier. Failure to do so may lead the insurer to deny coverage. This is a basic rule of Georgia insurance law that applies equally to large companies. At the end of the day, an insurance policy is a contract, and you are expected to strictly adhere to its terms, including any notice requirements.

Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Renaissance Bliss, LLC

Indeed, a failure to notify can affect the rights of third-party victims who may end up suing an insured entity. A recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Renaissance Bliss, LLC, provides an illustration of this principle. This particular case began with the rape of a property manager at a Georgia condominium complex. The sexual assault occurred in the property’s parking lot. When police later arrived at the scene, they learned that the parking lot’s security cameras, which might have captured footage of the assault, were not operational.