Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Georgia Appeals Court Upholds $2.6M Award In “Slip and Fall” Case

November 16, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently upheld an award of over $2.6 million to a Fayetteville woman who suffered personal injuries while shopping at a local grocery store. By a 6-1 vote, the appeals judges rejected the store’s claim it lacked “actual or constructive knowledge” of the hazard that caused the woman’s injuries. The court also upheld a $150,000 award to the woman’s husband for “loss of consortium.”

The Georgia Supreme Court has said that in any “slip and fall” case against a property owner, the plaintiff must prove two things: First, that the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a hazard; and second, that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite “exercising ordinary care” for her own safety.

The Kroger Company v. Schoenhoff

Georgia Appeals Court Clarifies Insurer’s “Uninsured Motorist” Liability in Multi-Defendant Accident Case

November 9, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Multi-vehicle accidents can pose complex questions regarding liability and insurance. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed such a case. The appeals court rejected a trial court’s decision to summarily rule in favor of an insurance company that argued it should not have to provide “underinsured motorist” benefits to a policyholder.

Wade v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Company

The plaintiff in this case was injured in a multi-vehicle accident. The plaintiff initially sued five defendants–three other drivers involved in the accident, the employer of one of those drivers, and the parent of another driver. Three of the five defendants settled for a total of $30,000, an amount less than the maximum limits on their respective insurance policies. The other two defendants settled for an amount equal to their policy limits.

Federal Judge Decimates Product Liability Case Over Unqualified Expert Testimony

November 2, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Expert testimony is often the key to winning a product liability case. If an expert witness proves inadequate, the plaintiff’s case may not survive long enough to get in front of a jury. To give a recent example, a federal judge in Savannah gutted most of a plaintiff’s case on summary judgment after determining his expert witness was unqualified and unreliable.

Grieco v. Tecumesh Products Company

The plaintiff worked as a repairman. In 2010, while making repairs to the compressor of a walk-in refrigerator, the compressor caught fire, burning the repairman’s hair, shoulder and arms. He subsequently sued the manufacturer of the compressor, alleging numerous product liability and breach of warranty claims. (Although the plaintiff’s claims are governed by Georgia state law, his case is being tried in federal court, as the manufacturer is an out-of-state corporation.)

Federal Judge Denies Bank Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment In Parking Lot Accident Case

October 25, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Under Georgia law, a property owner must exercise “ordinary care” in maintaining safe conditions for persons invited onto the premises. If an invited person subsequently alleges he or she suffered an accident or injury due to the owner’s failure in this regard–a premises liability claim–then the burden is on the accuser to first prove the owner “had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard that caused the accident.” Once the accuser meets this burden, then the onus shifts to the owner to prove that it was the accuser’s action or inaction that caused the injury.

Daugharty v. FDIC

A pending case before a federal judge in Valdosta illustrates how premises liability law works in practice. The plaintiff here visited a local bank in 2011 to close an account. This was her first time visiting this particular branch of the bank. She entered and exited the bank through a walkway leading from the parking lot to the bank’s doors. On her return trip after exiting the bank, the woman “tripped over a protruding lip of concrete in the walkway, fell to the ground, and injured herself.”

Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart Over “Slip-and-Fall”

October 18, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a typical premises liability lawsuit–such as a “slip-and-fall” case–the plaintiff must prove the property owner had “actual or constructive” knowledge of a hazardous condition on the property. But the property owner may attempt to defend itself by showing the plaintiff had “equal knowledge” of the hazard. If the plaintiff failed to exercise “ordinary care,” then the property owner won’t be held liable.

A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates these principles. In Houston v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., the plaintiff was shopping early one morning at a Wal-Mart in Clayton County. The plaintiff pushed a shopping car through the store’s meat department. He walked over some flattened cardboard boxes left on the floor by an employee. When he turned the cart around and walked over those same boxes a second time, he slipped on the boxes and fell to the ground.

The plaintiff sued Wal-Mart and two of its employees for damages related to injuries he suffered in the fall. During discovery, Wal-Mart produced security camera footage showing the plaintiff had crossed the cardboard boxes once without incident before falling the second time. The plaintiff conceded this point in his own deposition. Based on this, the trial judge concluded the plaintiff had “equal knowledge” of the hazard posed by the cardboard boxes and granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart and the two employees. The plaintiff appealed.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Application of Georgia Law In Accident Case

October 10, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Personal injury cases are usually tried in state courts under state law. But when the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states–say, an individual plaintiff living in Georgia sues a company based in Florida–then the case may be removed to a federal court. The federal court must still decide the case based on state law. But federal rules govern procedural questions like the admission of evidence. This can sometimes lead to confusion, as the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta recently found.

Cooper v. Marten Transport, Ltd.

In 2010, a husband and wife suffered serious back injuries after a tractor trailer collided with their car in Georgia. The couple sued the other driver and the company that owned the tractor trailer. As the defendants were not Georgia residents, they had the case removed from state to federal court.

Georgia Supreme Court Allows Train Conductor to Sue Railroad Over Lack of Safety Training

October 4, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Grade-crossing collisions–accidents where trains hit vehicles–are a surprisingly common occurrence in the U.S. railroad industry. Norfolk Southern, one of the largest railroads on the east coast, reported approximately 2,500 grade-crossing collisions over a four-year period–more than one accident per day. Railroad employees are frequently injured in these collisions, and unlike automobile-only accidents, their ability to recover damages may depend on federal, rather than state, law.

The Georgia Supreme Court recently addressed one such case. The plaintiff was a Norfolk Southern conductor. In 2007, the conductor’s train hit a logging truck in Dodge County. The conductor suffered severe back injuries and has not returned to work for the past six years.

The conductor sued Norfolk Southern alleging negligence. He claimed the company failed to train him properly “on how to protect himself in the event of a grade-crossing collision.” The conductor produced three experts, including a former Norfolk Southern trainmaster, who offered evidence tying the conductor’s injuries to a lack of proper training.

Appeals Court Upholds $1.36 Million Award to Georgia Tech Student Injured on “Ramblin’ Wreck”

September 28, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The “Ramblin’ Wreck” is well known to students and football fans at Georgia Tech. Since 1961, the Wreck–an authentic 1930 Ford Model A–has led the Tech football team into home games at Bobby Dodd Stadium in Atlanta. The Wreck is owned by the university but supervised by a student group called the “Ramblin’ Wreck Club.” The club elects a driver annually who is then responsible for the Wreck’s day-to-day operation and maintenance.

In 2007, about three months before the start of the football season, the Wreck’s driver was transporting the vehicle via trailer to a non-university event in Savannah. The accident severely damaged the Wreck. Several companies volunteered their services to repair the Wreck in time for the season, including Eco-Clean, Inc., which refurbished the car’s interior and roof.

Two years later, the Wreck’s driver and three other club members took the car from its garage to a nearby fraternity house. During the return trip, one member “stood on the passenger side running board, grasping an interior handle with one hand and an exterior handle with the other,” which was a standard position taken by club members when riding the vehicle. Unfortunately, one of the handles broke off, throwing the student from the vehicle. He suffered significant head injuries and permanently lost his sense of taste and smell as well as partial hearing.

Bowling Alley “Slip and Fall” Case Fails to Survive Summary Judgment

September 27, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a personal injury lawsuit, it’s critical to establish all of your facts before proceeding to court. It’s not enough to simply accuse someone of causing you an injury. There must be sufficient facts alleged to connect the injury to some action–or inaction–by the defendant. If a plaintiff can’t present such facts, the trial court will grant summary judgment to the defendant.

A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, Taylor v. Thunderbird Lanes, LLC, provides a useful example. In this case, the plaintiff was a woman who went to a local bowling alley with her son and daughter-in-law. The plaintiff was an experienced bowler who had patronized the alley before.

Bowling alleys commonly treat their lanes with oil in order to aid ball movement. Typically, such oil is used beyond the “foul line” behind which the bowler is expected to release his or her ball. There should be no oil or other obstruction in the area approaching the foul line.

Hospital Avoids Medical Malpractice Lawsuit By Posting Hallway Notice

September 20, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When you go to a hospital for treatment, is the hospital liable if something goes wrong? Not necessarily. Many of the physicians who work at a hospital are not employees, but rather “independent contractors” with medical privileges. Georgia law allows hospitals to escape liability for the medical malpractice of these independent contractor physicians if certain conditions are met.

A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals helps illustrate the problem. The victim in this case had a “previous cardiac history” and was admitted to Emory-Adventist Hospital on New Year’s Eve of 2005. He complained of “chest pain, shortness of breath, and urinary difficulties.” The attending physician in the emergency department treated him. Two days later, however, the victim died of a heart attack.

Two years later, the victim’s widow sued the hospital, the attending physician and several other parties. The hospital argued it was not a proper party to the lawsuit because the attending physician was an independent contractor, not a hospital employee. In fact, the attending physician worked for Cobb Medical Associates, LLC.