The rules of the road are not the same for all vehicles. Emergency vehicles including fire trucks, police cars and ambulances enjoy certain legal privileges. Under Georgia law, when such vehicles are actually “responding to an emergency call,” they can run red lights or stop signs without stopping. However, emergency vehicles must still “slow down as may be necessary for safe operation” and operators have the same duty “to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons” as any other motorist.

Brown v. DeKalb County

Here is a recent example of how Georgia courts apply the emergency vehicle doctrine. This case arises from a 2011 accident in DeKalb County. A county fire truck collided with another vehicle which had five passengers, including three children. The passengers subsequently sued DeKalb County.

On June 15, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an important decision in a case that may affect the rights of uninsured individuals who attempt to contest large hospital bills. Victims of motor vehicle accidents often have to deal with the physical, mental and financial stress of recovering from their injuries. Unpaid medical bills often increase this stress, especially when hospitals file liens against a victim’s insurance benefits or any potential judgment against the persons responsible for the accident.

Bowden v. The Medical Center, Inc.

The victim in this case was a 21-year-old passenger travelling in a rental car one evening in 2011. The car was in an accident, and emergency medical personnel transported the victim to a Columbus hospital. She required surgery for a broken leg, a three-day hospital stay and additional outpatient physical therapy. The hospital ultimately billed the victim over $21,400 for medical services. She did not have any health insurance.

In Georgia, product manufacturers are held to a strict liability standard. This means they are responsible for any injuries caused to individuals by a product that is “not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended, and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.” The “proximate cause” requirement is key. Even if a product is clearly defective in its design, the manufacturer is only liable under Georgia law if that defect was the direct cause of the injury. “Direct” in this context means that no intervening act by a third party is responsible for the victim’s injury. For example, if a driver causes an car accident through his or her own negligent driving, the manufacturer of the car cannot be held strictly liable for any design defects that may have contributed to the accident.

A federal appeals court recently explained the application of the proximate cause requirement in a horrific case arising from a truck accident inside a repair shop. Although the victim presented evidence suggesting the truck manufacturer failed to include an important safety feature, the courts held it was immaterial due to an intervening act by the vehicle’s owner.

Weaver v. PACCAR Inc.

Winning a personal injury judgment is not always the end of the matter. If a defendant or his insurance company refuses to pay up, a victim may face years of additional court proceedings. In some cases, a victim may even have to fight his or her own insurance company, as a recent Georgia Supreme Court decision illustrates.

Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company v. Castellanos

A man was seriously injured in a 2009 automobile accident. The other driver was at fault. The victim filed a personal injury lawsuit in Georgia state court. The defendant’s insurance company defended him at trial. Indeed, the defendant never appeared in the case or made any effort to defend himself. Not surprisingly, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the victim and awarded him approximately $3,700 in compensatory damages and another $3,200 in punitive damages.

Motor vehicle accidents often leave victims struggling to pay medical bills. Even if victims have insurance coverage through their employer, plan administrators may look for any loophole possible to deny benefits. A recent federal case in Georgia illustrates just how extensive litigation may become in such circumstances.

Faison v. Donalsonville Hospital, Inc.

This case began when a Georgia State Patrol officer attempted a routine traffic stop when he observed a motorcycle traveling 15 miles per hour over the highway speed limit. The motorcycle driver, who apparently feared a stop because he did not have a valid license or proper registration, decided to increase his speed in an attempt to elude the officer. Traveling upwards of 120 miles per hour, the driver lost control his motorcycle while navigating a curve, causing the vehicle to skid off the road. The driver suffered serious injuries as a result of this accident.

A federal judge in Augusta recently issued an interesting decision regarding an insurer’s liability for an accident allegedly caused by a drunk driver. The driver was driving his employer’s vehicle off-hours, and the insurer argued it was therefore not required to provide coverage under the employer’s policy.

Great American Alliance Insurance Company v. Hensley

This case arose from a 2012 accident between a truck and a motorcycle. The driver of the truck had consumed “at least four beers” prior to the accident, according to court records. The truck itself belonged to the driver’s employer. The employer had permitted the driver to use the truck for personal matters, and at the time of the accident he was not performing any work-related activity.

Last September, a federal appeals court in Atlanta asked the Georgia Supreme Court to rule on a question of state law relevant to a federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court delivered its answer in a unanimous May 11 opinion. The underlying case involves an accident victim’s entitlement to underinsured motorist benefits under an insurance policy.

FCCI Insurance Company v. McLendon Enterprises, Inc.

In September 2011, a school bus owned by Evans County collided with a privately owned truck. The truck’s driver, owner and passengers sued the Evans County Board of Education for negligence. Normally, state agencies like a school district enjoy sovereign immunity from civil suits. But the school district here had voluntarily taken out a $1 million liability policy. Accordingly, the school district settled with the defendants for the maximum limit on the policy, and could not be held liable for any amount beyond that.

Bicycle accidents occur all too frequently in Georgia and throughout the country. A 2012 federal study showed that 17 bicyclists died in accidents in Georgia, 11th highest among all states. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution further noted last year there were more than 129 bicycle collisions in Fulton and DeKalb counties alone in 2013, highlighting the potential safety risks of riding a two-wheel vehicle on the road.

But bicycle safety is not a one-way street. In Georgia, bicycles are considered “motor vehicles,” meaning bicyclists must obey traffic signals and follow certain safety practices. A bicyclist can never assume he or she has the right-of-way when riding into traffic. A recent decision by a federal judge in Georgia illustrates the perils for bicyclists who fail to obey traffic laws, then attempt to recover damages when they are subsequently injured in an accident.

Marshall v. Penland

Premises liability is often associated with “slip and fall” cases. For example, if a person slips in a puddle in the middle of supermarket and injures himself, the store can be held liable if it knew about the water and failed to mop it up in a timely fashion. But premises liability may arise from many types of hazards. Indeed, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed a case where the alleged hazard was an unattended child sitting on the floor.

Barbour-Amir v. Comcast of Georgia/Virginia, Inc.

This case began when a woman went to a store in July 2010 to pay her cell phone bill. According to court records, “The store was narrow and crowded,” with several customers waiting in line. The woman waited her turn, proceeded to pay her bill, and as she turned to leave, she “tripped over a young child who was sitting on the floor behind her.” The woman fell to the ground and suffered injuries to her back, knees and ankle.

Government employees are not subject to the same standards as members of the general public. As a general rule in Georgia, a state employee enjoys “official immunity” when exercising discretion in the performance of his or her duties. Only when a state employee fails to carry out a specifically mandated “ministerial duty” can an aggrieved party seek damages in court.

Cooley v. Bryant

Recently a divided seven-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed this distinction between ministerial and discretionary acts. The plaintiff in this case is an inmate at a state prison. He suffered serious injuries when he lost control of a lawn mower assigned to him during a work detail. The mower’s “kill switch,” which is supposed to stop the engine in the event of such a loss of control, failed. The plaintiff subsequently sued the corrections officer supervising the work detail for “negligent inspection and negligent maintenance of the lawn mower.”