personal injury

Suing a Non-Georgia Resident Following a Car Accident

June 18, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Many Georgia car accidents involve motorists from other states. If you are injured by a nonresident driver’s negligence, you can still seek to recover damages through the Georgia courts. It is important to understand that there are special conditions imposed by Georgia law in such cases. You must make every effort to locate the out-of-state defendant and ensure he or she is properly served with a copy of your lawsuit. As a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates, these requirements are not optional.

Covault v. Harris

The plaintiff in this case was involved in a two-car accident in Fulton County, Georgia. The plaintiff and the defendant were traveling towards the same intersection when, according to the plaintiff, the defendant “failed to maintain his lane and struck [the plaintiff’s] vehicle.” According to a police report taken at the scene of the accident, the defendant was a resident of Kentucky driving a rental car. The plaintiff subsequently learned the defendant’s home address by reviewing Kentucky’s voter registration records.

What is a Dog’s Value in a Georgia Personal Injury Lawsuit?

June 10, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

For many of us, our pets are considered members of the family. We would never assign our beloved dog or cat a monetary value. Unfortunately, when an animal is injured or killed due to the negligence of another party, the courts need some way to determine the damages owed to the owner.

Barking Hound Village, LLC v. Monyak

The Georgia Supreme Court recently addressed this issue. The plaintiffs in this case placed their two dogs—a mixed-breed dachshund and a Labrador retriever—with an Atlanta kennel for 10 days. The retriever required regular doses of arthritis medication, which the plaintiffs provided to the kennel with appropriate instructions. But according to the plaintiffs, the kennel instead gave the drug to their dachshund, causing the dog to suffer renal failure. The plaintiffs said they spent upwards of $10,000 over a nine-month period before the dog ultimately died.

Georgia Hospital Not Liable for Hundreds of Forged Mammograms

April 15, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Employers are normally liable for the acts of their employees. In tort law this is known as vicarious liability. In Georgia, vicarious liability applies whenever an employee acts “by [the employer’s] command or in the prosecution and within the scope of [the employer’s] business, whether the same are committed by negligence or voluntarily.” In other words, if you direct your employee to complete a particular task, and in doing so he injured another, the victim can sue you for damages.

Jefferson v. Houston Hospitals, Inc.

But what about a case where the employee ignores your instructions? A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrates how employers may be able to get off the hook even in cases of egregious employee misconduct. The case arises from a 2014 incident that made national headlines. In April 2014, a former technician at a hospital in Perry, Georgia, pleaded guilty to 10 counts of reckless conduct and one count of felony computer forgery.

Insurer Not Liable for Fight Over Ownership of Car

April 8, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Georgia law requires all drivers to carry auto insurance. The law sets certain minimum requirements for coverage. For example, a policy must include provide at least $25,000 in coverage for “bodily injury” to one person, or $50,000 to cover multiple persons injured in the same accident. Remember, these are only minimum requirements, and many drivers choose to purchase insurance policies with higher coverage limits.

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Marshall

But insurance does not cover an accident just because your car may be involved in some way. A recent Georgia case illustrates this point. The case actually began as a dispute over the ownership of a car. In 2010, a boyfriend purchased a car for his girlfriend. She had poor credit and needed him to register the car in his name so she could obtain a loan to finance the purchase. Although the girlfriend subsequently made the loan payments, the vehicle remained legally titled in the name of the boyfriend.

Appeals Court Reinstates “Toxic Tort” Claim Over Mold-Infested Apartment

March 31, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Personal injury claims are not always based on accidents or direct actions by a negligent party. In so-called toxic tort cases, for instance, a defendant may be held liable for a hazardous health condition that contributes to a victim’s injuries. In such cases, a plaintiff must establish causation through expert medical testimony.

McCarney v. PA Lex Glen, LLC

In one recent case, the Georgia Court of Appeals reinstated a toxic tort claim against a landlord accused by a tenant of failing to properly treat a major mold infestation. According to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, he rented an apartment from the defendant for about a year. Towards the end of his tenancy, the plaintiff learned from his neighbors there might be mold in their apartments. The plaintiff subsequently discovered a “black substance” covering several surfaces in and around his unit.

School District Faces Trial Over Man Injured by Cannon at Football Game

March 18, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Georgia law prohibits individuals from carrying “weapons” in any public school. There are exceptions for law enforcement who need to carry firearms in carrying out their official duties. But the Georgia legislature has made it clear that schools are supposed to be “gun free zones.”

Boatright v. Copeland

There was an interesting personal injury lawsuit recently before the Georgia Court of Appeals. The plaintiff was “assisting in loading and firing a cannon owned by the Appling County School District.” The cannon was used outdoors during Appling County High School’s football games. The plaintiff was compressing gunpowder in the cannon with a rod when the cannon suddenly discharged, causing permanent injury to the plaintiff’s right hand. The plaintiff subsequently sued the school district, as well as the superintendent of schools and individual school board members.

When Can You Sue a Negligent Driver for Punitive Damages?

February 29, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Punitive damages are designed to punish a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. Unlike economic damages, which are supposed to compensate the plaintiff for his or her losses, punitive damages are meant to have a deterrent effect on an especially irresponsible defendant. To that end, under Georgia law a jury may only award punitive damages when there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.”

Corbett v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.

In many cases, a judge will not even allow a jury to consider punitive damages unless the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence that meets the statutory threshold. For example, a federal judge in Atlanta recently granted summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages to two defendants in an ongoing truck accident case. While this does not affect other elements of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the judge made it clear this was not a case where punitive damages should even be an option.

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.

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.

Court Allows Elevator Accident Case to Proceed to Trial

January 15, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a premises liability case—that is, a personal injury lawsuit arising when someone is injured on another person’s property—the plaintiff must generally prove that the property owner possessed “superior knowledge” of the defective condition that caused the alleged injury. In other words, the danger must be known to the owner but not to the plaintiff. This does not mean a property owner in every case can simply plead ignorance to a hazardous condition. Nor does it mean that he or she can try to shift the blame to a third party, such as a contractor who worked on the property.

Hill v. Cole CC Kenesaw GA, LLC

An ongoing Georgia case illustrates how the law may protect injury victims in certain situations. The plaintiff in this case worked in an office building. On the evening in question, the plaintiff and a co-worker entered an elevator to leave the building. The elevator stopped at a point such that it was not level with the floor. The plaintiff subsequently tripped, hit her on head on a railing inside the elevator, and had to be taken to the hospital.