car accidents

Georgia Accident Victim Says Social Media Company’s Negligence Caused Crash

April 29, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Distracted driving is a leading cause of car accidents. This is why “texting while driving” is illegal in Georgia and many other states. State law expressly forbids anyone from operating a motor vehicle “while using a wireless telecommunications device to write, send, or read any text based communication, including but not limited to a text message, instant message, e-mail, or Internet data.”

Maynard v. McGee and Snapchat, Inc.

When distracted driving does lead to a car accident, the driver may face a personal injury lawsuit from the victims. A lawsuit recently filed in Spalding County, Georgia, raises the novel question of whether a social media company may also be liable for encouraging distracted driving by its users. The lawsuit, which is still in its early stages, has already sparked international media attention.

Determining Negligence in a Car Accident When Each Party Blames the Other

March 25, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Negligence exists under Georgia law whenever a person breaches a “legal duty to conform” to a specified legal standard, and as a result, another person suffers an injury or loss. In the context of a car accident, for example, a person may be negligent if he or she fails to follow the rules of the road, thereby causing an accident that injures another driver or damages their vehicle. Indeed, many personal injury cases come down to establishing which driver’s actions were responsible for the accident.

Newsome v. LinkAmerica Express, Inc.

In a recent case, a divided Georgia Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit arising from an accident where a car hit a parked tractor trailer. Both parties—the driver and the tractor trailer owner—claimed the other party’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident. The trial court sided with the defendant, while a majority of the Court of Appeals said the plaintiff should at least be permitted to argue his case before a jury.

The Difference Between General and Limited Releases in Car Accident Settlements

March 4, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Litigation is not uncommon following an auto accident. In many cases, the parties can still settle their dispute without the need for a full-blown jury trial. But before agreeing to any settlement, it is essential each party understands what rights they may be giving up. A settlement is a contract, which means there must be a “meeting of the minds” in order for the agreement to be enforceable.

Cone v. Dickenson

Recently the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed a dispute arising from just such a settlement agreement. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a car accident. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging his negligence caused the accident.

Insurer Liable for $5.4 Million Judgment in Defective Auto Repair Case

February 21, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

We often hear about cases in which a person is injured in an accident due to a defect in the manufacturing of a car. But there are also cases in which someone may be injured due to an improper repair made to a car. As with manufacturing and design defects, a bad repair may not be immediately obvious to the driver, yet still produce catastrophic effects months, even years, later.

Lee v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company

In 2005, a well-known auto manufacturer issued a recall for one of its 2000 model-year vehicles. An owner of one such vehicle brought his car to a Georgia dealership to receive the appropriate repairs. Unfortunately, the dealership’s service technician did not perform the repair correctly, causing damage to the vehicle’s cruise-control cable.

What Happens When Two Insurance Policies Cover the Same Accident?

February 12, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are injured in an accident and the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to cover any damages, you may turn to your insurance policy’s uninsured motorist coverage. But what happens if you are eligible for uninsured motorist coverage under two different insurance policies? Which policy has priority? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question.

Sentinel Insurance Company v. USAA Insurance Company

This case began with a rear-end collision. One driver sued the other for negligence. The plaintiff also served two insurance companies as co-defendants. She claimed eligibility for uninsured motorist benefits under both companies’ policies.

Supreme Court Says Insurers Can Not Go After Accident Victim’s Personal Assets

January 22, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Although lawsuits arising from car accidents are usually dealt with under state law, there are questions of federal law that may arise from any settlement or judgment received by a victim. For example, if the victim received benefits from his or her employer-sponsored health insurance following an accident, the insurer may be entitled to enforce a lien against the proceeds from any personal injury lawsuit. The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the related question of how far an insurer may go to enforce such a lien.

Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan

This case originated in Florida. In 2008, a drunk driver ran a stop sign and hit another vehicle. The victim suffered serious injuries that required extensive medical care. The victim had health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan governed by federal law. Altogether, the insurer paid over $120,000 for the victim’s medical care following the accident.

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

Georgia Mother Allowed to Proceed With Lawsuit Against Daughter’s Auto Insurer

December 13, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you have been in a car accident, your insurance company may attempt to employ every proverbial trick in the book to deny you coverage. Georgia courts are also predisposed to strictly interpret insurance contracts to avoid any ambiguity that may favor the insured party. There are exceptions, as illustrated by a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision.

King-Morrow v. American Family Insurance Company

In this case, the plaintiff was a woman living with her adult daughter. The daughter held an automobile insurance policy that included uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The UM coverage applied to “relatives living in the policy holder’s household,” which included the mother.

Georgia Truck Driver Not Entitled to Insurance Benefits After Getting Hit By Log

December 4, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Uninsured motorist coverage is designed, among other things, to compensate you if you are in an accident with an unknown vehicle. A common example is a “hit and run” where the offending driver speeds away and is never identified. In such cases, your insurance carrier is supposed to provide uninsured motorist benefits. You should always keep in mind that insurance is a contract governed by state law, and as with any contract, there may be unusual circumstances that are not covered by the policy.

American Alternative Insurance Company v. Bennett

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed such an unusual case. The plaintiff in this case was driving his tractor trailer down a road in Brantley County, Georgia. According to his testimony, a second tractor-trailer transporting “a load of logs” passed him going in the opposite direction. Shortly thereafter, “a log hanging off of the oncoming log truck struck plaintiff’s tractor, shattering the windshield and causing shattered glass to impact the plaintiff’s eyes and face.”

Cobb County Road Official Not Liable for Storm-Related Death

November 20, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

With winter approaching, Georgia drivers need to be careful navigating potentially hazardous road conditions. Although local governments are responsible for most highway maintenance, Georgia law makes it difficult to hold officials responsible for failing to address even life-threatening hazards. The parents of a deceased child tragically learned this lesson recently from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Jobling v. Shelton

On January 9, 2011, a major snowstorm hit Cobb County, Georgia, dumping upwards of six inches of snow on the area. Cobb County maintains about 2,500 miles of roads, and the County Department of Transportation was responsible for clearing ice and snow from all of them. The Department prioritized roads as “primary” or “secondary” and proceeded to treat all of them over a period of several days.