Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Georgia Appeals Court Says Police Officer May Be Liable for K-9 Attack on Child

May 12, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

According to the American Humane Association, nearly 50% of dog attacks in the United States each year involve children under the age of 12. Bite rates tend to be higher for younger children. Young boys are also more susceptible to dog bites than girls.

Georgia law holds the owner of any “vicious or dangerous animal” liable for injuries caused in an unprovoked attack when the owner is careless or allows the animal “to go at liberty.” Many Georgia counties also require outdoor animals to be leashed or otherwise restrained. The existence of such laws is sufficient to prove the animal has a “vicious propensity” for purposes of liability.

Eshleman v. Key

Georgia Appeals Court Reinstates Wrongful Death Lawsuit Arising from Illegally Parked Trailer

May 5, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit, it is not enough to show the defendant was at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Under Georgia law, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he or she is “50 percent or more responsible” for the injuries suffered. The question of responsibility is typically decided by a jury. In some cases, a trial judge may grant one party summary judgment if he or she determines there is no genuine dispute over the facts. But judges must be careful not to short-circuit the trial process, as the Georgia Court of Appeals explained in one recent case.

Reed v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company

In 2008, a commercial tractor-trailer driver parked his vehicle in an emergency lane at the intersection of Interstate 285 and Interstate 75 in Cobb County. It was early in the morning and the driver wanted to rest. Nevertheless, parking in an emergency lane violates Georgia traffic laws.

Can a Jury Rule for a Plaintiff but Award Zero Damages?

April 24, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In civil cases, such as personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits, a jury must determine the defendant’s liability and what damages, if any, are owed the plaintiff. Juries must reach a unanimous verdict on both issues. And while unanimity may require a certain level of bargaining among jurors, there are cases where a “compromise verdict” must be rejected by trial judges and appellate courts. In particular, a court will not allow a jury to hold a defendant liable while deliberately awarding “inadequate damages” to compensate a plaintiff.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta recently ordered a new trial in a negligence lawsuit because of just such a compromise verdict. The appellate panel found the trial judge improperly instructed the jury, which in turn led to a verdict where the plaintiff “won” but received zero damages.

Collins v. Marriott International, Inc.

Will General Motors Be Held Accountable for Selling Defective Vehicles?

April 21, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

General Motors recently issued a sweeping recall for a more than 2.5 million vehicles sold between 2005 and 2011. The recall includes the Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac G5, Saturn Ion, Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky models. According to GM, the vehicles have a defective ignition switch that affects the operation of the airbag system.

This is not a minor safety issue. GM itself acknowledged their faulty ignition switches can be linked to at least 31 motor vehicle accidents and 13 deaths. The Detroit-based automaker now faces a number of lawsuits, including a class action complaint filed in Texas seeking upwards of $10 billion for GM customers who purchased the defective vehicles. Another lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, claims GM’s efforts to fix the recalled vehicles are “insufficient” and that there is a second ignition-switch defect the company has yet to address. Altogether, GM has been been named a defendant in at least 37 cases spanning 17 separate federal courts. In addition to litigation, multiple government agencies, including the United States Department of Justice and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have opened investigations into GM’s mismanagement.

Will GM Escape Responsibility?

Georgia Appeals Court Chides Trial Judge for Siding with Physician in Malpractice Case

April 14, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Medical malpractice occurs when a physician fails to observe a commonly accepted “standard of care” and that failure is the “proximate cause” of a subsequent injury sustained by the patient. The question of causation is normally decided by a jury. If a plaintiff fails to provide any evidence of either element–breach of standard of care or causation–a judge will not allow a malpractice case to go to the jury. However, judges must also be careful not to cavalierly dismiss cases, as a recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrates.

Moore v. Singh

Rosemary Moore was a diabetic who died in 2010 from renal disease. In December 2008, Moore fell in her home and injured her knee. The emergency department at Henry Medical Center diagnosed her with a knee sprain. Moore could not stand or walk, but she was released.

Georgia Appeals Court Absolves Hotel Chain of Liability in Bathtub Accident

April 4, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Most hotels and motels are affiliated with a national brand such as Hilton or Marriott. This means that individual hotels are owned and operated locally but comply with certain standards imposed by the national brand. Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether a national brand could be held liable for injuries sustained by a customer at a locally owned hotel.

Bright v. Sandstone Hospitality, LLC

Wingate by Wyndham is a brand name used by more than a dozen mid-priced hotels in Georgia (and about 100 throughout the country). In 2008, the plaintiff in this case checked into a Wingate owned and operated by Sandstone Hospitality, LLC. After taking a morning bath in his room, the plaintiff attempted to use the grab bar to lift himself from the tub. The bar separated from the wall, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure his lower back. He subsequently required surgery.

Georgia Appeals Court Reinstates “Phantom Driver” Lawsuit

March 31, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

What happens when you get in an automobile accident where the other driver is never identified? If you have uninsured motorist coverage, your insurer should cover the damages. Georgia law defines a vehicle as uninsured when “the owner or operator of the motor vehicle is unknown.” But there must be adequate proof an accident occurred. This was the subject of a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision, which illustrates the legal burden of proof in these so-called “phantom driver” cases.

Leslie v. Doe

The plaintiff in this case was driving down Highway 138 near a shopping center in Fulton County. He lost control of his vehicle when he swerved to avoid an unidentified vehicle that had just pulled out of the shopping center’s parking lot. The sudden swerving caused the driver to lose control of his vehicle, which flipped over several times and crashed. The other vehicle continued without stopping and was never identified.

Georgia Appeals Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against State University Over Notice Requirement

March 21, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Process matters when bringing a personal injury lawsuit. This goes double when the defendant is a state government agency. The Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA) governs personal injury lawsuits against the state for torts committed by its employees. Normally any government enjoys “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits in its own courts. The GTCA creates a limited waiver of that immunity provided its requirements are followed to the letter. A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates what happens when those requirements are not followed.

Driscoll v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

The GTCA applies to all state agencies, including the University System of Georgia and its member colleges and universities. Four years ago, a van owned by Georgia State University was traveling down an eastbound lane on Interstate 285. A tire flew off the van, crossed the median wall and struck a Hyundai Sonata and another car. The driver of the Sonata was killed.

Florida Supreme Court Sides With Malpractice Victims Over Insurance Companies

March 17, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Insurance companies have pressured a number of states to impose limits on “non-economic” damages a plaintiff may recover in a medical malpractice or wrongful death lawsuit. Non-economic damages include losses to individuals, such as pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of one’s ability to enjoy life. The insurance industry claims such damage awards lead to higher malpractice insurance premiums for doctors and can ultimately drive practitioners out of the marketplace.

But, limits on non-economic damages are ultimately unfair to victims of medical malpractice. A number of state courts have recognized this and struck down legislative efforts to cap damages. For example, in 2010 the Georgia Supreme Court held limits on non-economic damages violated a victim’s right to trial by jury, as the caps indiscriminately overruled a jury’s findings of fact. And on March 13 of this year, the Florida Supreme Court declared that a state’s limits on non-economic damages violated the equal protection provision of the Florida Constitution.

McCall v. United States

Georgia Appeals Court Rules Out Punitive Damages in Disputed Traffic Accident

March 7, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In personal injury or other tort cases, punitive damages are designed not to compensate the victim, but to “penalize, punish or deter” the wrongdoer. Georgia’s punitive damages law requires a plaintiff prove the defendant’s “willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care that would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.” As the Georgia courts have explained, punitive damages require more than showing a defendant’s negligence–there must also be “circumstances of aggravation or outrage.”

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently dismissed a punitive damages claim arising from an automobile accident. The appeals court disagreed with a trial judge’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a punitive damages claim. The decision turned on an assessment of an employer’s responsibility in hiring one of the drivers involved in the accident.

MasTEC North America, Inc. v. Wilson