Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

At some point you or someone you know has probably flashed their headlights into oncoming traffic to warn them of an upcoming speed trap, and probably never worried about the fact there may be a crime being committed. But is it really illegal? This situation is exactly what got Erich Campbell, a college student from Land O' Lakes, Florida, ticketed in December of 2009. Though Mr. Campbell felt he was just being helpful, the Florida Highway Patrol did not share his sentiment, and wrote him a citation for flashing his lights to warn oncoming of traffic of a speed trap. He told the Florida Highway Patrol at the time that he had no idea providing a warning to fellow motorist was a violation of any laws.

After researching the situation, Mr. Campbell decided he was not going to take the ticket lying down, and felt what he did was completely permissible under the law. In September he filed a lawsuit on his own behalf, as well as for every other in driver in Florida ticketed for the same violation over the previous six years. The lawsuit accused police of misinterpreting state law and violating motorists' free speech rights. He further claimed that there was no law on the books that would prevent him from warning other motorist of police up ahead. Campbell's attorney said he felt that police were misinterpreting a law that's meant to ban drivers from having strobe lights in their cars or official looking blue police lights. Campbell said that most of the tickets that were issued were, "Frustrated police officers who feel they were disrespected. When someone comes along and rats them out, they take offense to it."

Continue reading "Is it Illegal to Flash Your Headlights at Other Motorist to Warn of Speed Traps? Florida Man Wins Suit that Allows Motorists to Flash Lights " »

The Georgia Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that tests the extent to which property owners are responsible for others injured by animals on their property.

The Homeowners Association of The Landings, a subdivision on Skidaway Island, just outside of Savannah, GA, is being sued in relation to the death of Gwyneth Williams. Williams, 83, was house sitting at her daughter's home inside the Landings, and was attacked by an 8-foot alligator in October 2007. The alligator was later killed, and both Williams' hands as well as one of her legs was found inside the stomach of the animal

In Georgia, the law normally protects property owners from lawsuits stemming from accidents caused by wild animals, but lawyers representing Williams' family say this is a different situation. Attorney Michael Connor says that there nothing at all wild about the property in question, "It is a very contrived environment. There are 160 lagoons on the development. And all those lagoons are man made."

Connor further explains, "The landings stocked the lagoons with the fish, which fed the alligators, and connected the waterways to create an "alligator superhighway." He says the Landings, "Knew the alligators were dangerous," and they have had prior reports of problems. Connor feels that the alligator could, and should have, been easily discovered and removed by a responsible maintenance program by the HOA of the Landings.

Continue reading "Georgia Supreme Court to Decide Property Owner's Responsibility For Fatal Alligator Attack" »

In a case that may have particular interest to University of Georgia Football Fans, ex-UGA football coach Jim Donnan is being sued by one of his former players Jonas Jennings, who was a standout for the Dawgs between 1996 and 2000, and entered the NFL Draft in 2001. Jennings is suing his old coach for $950,000 in lost principal and earnings he says was promised to him for investing in the company GLC Limited, a company Donnan was working for on a commission basis. GLC was pitched by Donnan as retail liquidation company, with it's principal business being in the re-sale of consumer products.

In the lawsuit Jennings blames Donnan, who he describes as a father figure and mentor, for deceiving him into investing money to go to furniture and appliances that were to be sold at a profit. Jennings says Donnan portrayed himself as officer or someone with control over GLC to lure Jennings into investing.The lawsuit alleges that in reality Jennings money was used in a Ponzi Scheme for the benefit of Donnan (who was not an officer), with Jennings' capital going to prior participants in the same investment, rather than to purchase inventory for a viable business enterprise.

Jennings is only one small part of Donnan's troubles, as the FBI and IRS began investigating his activities with GLC back in April of this year, and the findings seem to paint a troubling picture. Donnan was the first major investor in GLC, investing more than $5 million of his own money, and was chiefly responsible for gaining additional capital for the company. Bankruptcy court documents for GLC, who filed for protection earlier this, show that investors sank nearly $82 million into GLC, but that less than $12 million was actually spent on inventory, with at least $13 million in missing investor money.

According to GLC, Donnan made more than $14.5 million through commissions of 15 to 20 percent for any investment he solicited. Oddly the investors he solicited, including former University of Oklahoma coach Barry Switzer, Virginia Tech football coach Frank Beamer, and Texas Tech football coach Tommy Tuberville all lost substantial sums of money.

In July of this year GLC also sued Donnan, who they say in the lawsuit, "Is substantially, if not principally, responsible for the initiation and operation of a far-reaching Ponzi scheme that defrauded GLC and it's investors of approximately $27,752,159."

Continue reading "Jonas Jennings, Sues His Former Football Coach, Jim Donnan, Alleging Donnan Lured Him Into a Ponzi Scheme" »

The Georgia Supreme Court recently published an opinion in the case of O'Brien v Bruscato, allowing suit to go forward involving a mentally ill Georgia man that brutally killed mother. Vito Bruscato, the father and guardian of Victor Bruscato brought a medical malpractice suit against Victor's psychiatrist for discontinuing his medication shortly before the homicide of Victor's mother. Victor, who had a history of violence, crushed his mother's head with a battery charger and proceeded to stab her 72 times on August 15, 2002 at the family's Norcross Home. During his interview with police, Victor Bruscato, told them he knew killing his mother was wrong but that "the devil made him do it."

The suit alleges Dr. O'Brien's negligence in discontinuing his son's medication caused him to become psychotic and kill his mother. The two drugs, Zyprexa and Luvox, are powerful prescription that Bruscato was taken off of several weeks before killing his mother. The court records in the case indicate that Victor Bruscato was assigned to Dr. O'Brien in 2001in a community health center in Gwinnett County. Expert witnesses have testified that anti-psychotic drugs he was prescribed were helping him manage his violent tendencies. In May 2002, O'Brien discontinued the medications because he wanted to make sure that Bruscato wasn't developing a "dangerous syndrome." After the discontinuation of the medication, Bruscato claims he began having nightmares and the claimed the devil was ordering him to do bad deeds.

The Supreme Court noted in it's decision that an expert psychiatrist testified "the chemical changes that resulted from withholding medication caused Bruscato to decompensate and experience the return of the most severe symptoms of his medical disorder, including auditory command hallucinations, agitation, and hostility. The expert concluded that O'Brien's treatment manifested gross negligence and a disregard of the consequences of leaving a historically violent and potentially psychotic patient unmedicated."

Continue reading "The Supreme Court of Georgia Ruled a Jury Will Be Allowed to Hear Unusual Medical Malpractice Suit" »

In an interesting decision out of the 6th Circuit, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a judgment for CSX Transportation Inc. last week in a case brought by a group of citizens seeking medical monitoring for the small Ohio town of Painesville, after a train derailment in 2007. When the train derailed it was carrying substances that included glycerin, alcohol, ethanol, and butane. All of theses substances are known to be dangerous when inhaled in large quantities, and butane is an extremely volatile substance, and inhaling it can cause, narcosis, asphyxia, and cardiac arrhythmia. After the accident more than 500 families were evacuated in the half-mile area surrounding the site. In addition, some of the 3000 gallons of Ethanol that was spilled leaked into a nearby creek. CSX admitted in court filings that improper track maintenance, including using the wrong size rail as part of a repair, caused the crash.

The residents who brought the suit against CSX were attempting to persuade the court to force CSX to pay for the expense of medically monitoring the area for an extended period of time to assess any risk the spill might be causing to the residents near the site of the derailment. The appeals court said the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue. Instead, the court says, that they relied on a conclusory statement by a doctor that, "a reasonable physician would prescribe for the Plaintiff and the putative class a monitoring regime."

Daniel Bechenel Jr., a lead lawyer in the case, called the derailment an example of railroads putting people in danger and imminent risk by cutting safety precautions and repair standards. Though this may be true, the Appeals Court felt that the overall risk was too small to force CSX to pay for the medical monitoring.

Interestingly, The National Association of Manufacturers and eight other well-known Tort Reform groups, including the American Tort Reform Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Insurance Association, had filed amicus briefs arguing that the risk was too speculative to justify imposing expensive medical monitoring on CSX. Looking at this case from the perspective of a Georgia Plaintiff's Attorney, it seems this may be another victory for big business.

The Georgia Supreme Court in Flores et al. v. Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia, LLC, ruled last week that a convenience store can be sued if it sells alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who subsequently injures others. The original suit involved a Clinch County convenience store that sold a twelve pack of beer to a visibly intoxicated man, Billy Joe Grundell. About four hours after the purchase, Grundell's vehicle crossed the center lane of a highway and collided with a van head-on in an accident that took his life as well as five others, including children who were six and three months old. At the time of the accident Grundell's blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit.

The decision revolved around the interpretation of Georgia's "Dram Shop Act," which provides that a person who sells, furnishes, or serves alcohol to an intoxicated person of lawful drinking age shall not be liable for injury, death, or damage that person causes because of their intoxication. However, the act also states that a person who knowingly sells alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person when they know that person will soon be driving may become liable.

Continue reading "Recent Georgia Supreme Court Decision a Victory for Victims of Drunk Drivers" »

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Jury duty, like voting, is a right and privilege of every citizen. Every day people are empowered to decide important issues that potential impact everyone in our community.

An alarming story came out in the The Atlanta Journal Constitution on Sunday that almost half of jurors summoned for jury duty in Fulton County fail to show. A crackdown has begun on jurors who skip jury duty by the Fulton County courts, but has so far provided little response. Last month, the Superior Court sent out 15,000 letters to no show jurors and warned them of contempt of court charges, $500 fines, and 20-day jail stays if they didn't reschedule or explain themselves. To date only 48 percent of people receiving the letters have either called or written back.

When jurors do respond the most common reasons given for skipping were: "I never got the summons, "I traveled out of state," and "I moved." Regardless of the reason this is a very serious problem that is very costly for Fulton County and ultimately you the taxpayer. Furthermore, it's important to remember that our entire system of justice comes down to one person: you, the juror. Taking the time to serve as a juror, to listen to all the evidence and to decide honestly and fairly is perhaps the most important duty a private citizen can perform. There is no question that everyone's time is valuable, and that taking the time to serve as a juror might seem inconvenient, but it is time well spent, as our justice system depends on it. Citizens of this country enjoy freedoms and legal rights many in other countries only dream of. The protection of our rights and liberties is achieved through a strong court system, and serving as a juror is a cornerstone of the system.

Hopefully the crack down on no-show jurors will lead to an improvement in the overall number of people who are showing up for jury duty, and the trend in Fulton County will not spread to other areas of the metro Atlanta area. Fulton County Lawyers, prosecutors and judges depend on jurors for the system to work. Jurors bring the common sense and values of the community into the courtroom to resolve disputes and it is important the entire community be represented for our justice system to work effectively.

Winston Churchill once said "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Unfortunately this is the case with the civil justice system. If you are an HBO subscriber, the new documentary "Hot Coffee" is definitely worth taking the time to watch. The documentary, made by Susan Saladoff, takes a look at tort reform in America, and provides a look into the other side of the argument of so called "frivolous," lawsuits. "Hot Coffee" tells the story of four families who have been left emotionally and financially devastated by caps on punitive damages and mandatory arbitration. It also seeks to dispel the myth that American courts are currently flooded with "frivolous" lawsuits.

One of the main stories of the documentary is the lawsuit of Stella Liebeck, better known as the woman who sued McDonald's over burns she received from a cup of coffee purchased from the restaurant chain. This is the lawsuit that everyone seems to use when they use the term "frivolous" lawsuit. What the documentary points out is that McDonalds and other corporations used this case by twisting the facts to promote tort reform, claiming that this was a ridiculous lawsuit, and turning Ms. Liebeck into the punch line of jokes all over the country. In reality Ms. Liebeck was a 79-year-old woman who was burned so severely while attempting to put cream and sugar in her cup of coffee that she required skin grafts. When Ms. Liebeck brought the suit she was only attempting to cover the difference in her medical cost and what Medicare was paying. On top of that, McDonalds had already received over 700 complaints of coffee burns that they were keeping at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit, but these are the details that McDonalds managed to keep out of the media all these years to promote their own interest.

Ms. Saladoff says she made the documentary because she wants people to be empowered to take our justice system back. She believes that the American civil justice system has been hijacked by groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who are only concerned with the economics of big business interest, and have no concern for the public at large. Saladoff has also created a Hot Coffee "Take Action" page, for people feel strongly about her film, where she shows many things you can do to fight against corporate interest trying to take away American's rights in the civil justice system.

Regardless of your feeling on tort reform, the documentary is a thought provoking look into the other side of the tort reform argument that is rarely heard by the American public. Here at the Persons Firm we are thankful that Ms. Saladoff took the time to tell this powerful story.

In a 5-4 decision on Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical drugs could not be sued under state law over allegations that they failed to provide adequate label warnings about potential side effects. This ruling should be of a great concern to anyone who uses generic pharmaceuticals.

In the original lawsuit, Gladys Mensing, alleged that taking a generic form of metoclopramide, a common drug used to treat heartburn, gave her a severe neurological movement disorder. None of the generic manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide made any effort to include warnings on the label for metoclopramide. Manufacturers of the generic metoclopramide, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, UDL Labratories, and Actavis Inc. argued that federal law barred such a suit becausethe drug is approved by the FDA, (federal law requires generic drugs only to have the same labels as their brand name equivalents). They argued that because government regulations only require them to have the same label on metoclopramide as is on its brand name equivalent, Reglan, that they had no duty to include additional warnings for their generic form of metoclopramide.

The majority of the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, sided with the pharmaceutical companies. Thomas stated in his opinion that the federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflict with and thus pre-empt state lawsuits. The net effect of this opinion is that it gives generic drug manufacturers zero liability for medication injuries that could have been avoided by an updated warning label.

Continue reading "Product Liability Update; Many Stunned by U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling On Generic Drugs" »

Public debate continues to rage over new security measures being used on passengers at our nation's airports. At the center of the controversy are the body scan machines ("naked scanners") that uses radiation to create naked images of us for security personnel to review. If the passenger refuses the naked body scan then they every part of the body is touched head to toe during a pat down procedure. Following the much publicized "underwear bomber", the body scans and pat downs are designed to catch contraband even if it's hidden near a persons genitals. The body scan program is being opposed by the American Pilots Association, Airline CEOs, the Libertarian Party, consumer rights groups, and religious groups. In response, TSA claims the body scan images are never retained, they claim the radiation is minimal and downplay the privacy and religious concerns with being viewed naked at the airport.

As to the first claim of never retaining naked body scan images, we now know that isn't true. It was recently discovered 35,000 body scan images, stored by U.S. Marshals in Miami, were obtained by a technology blog. Of those 35,000 images,100 naked body scans were posted on the internet. I imaging the thought of seeing yourself naked online does not appeal to most people.

Even if your naked images never make it to the internet, many describe the process of being viewed naked in the airport as humiliating. It was this type of humiliation that led to violence at Miami International Airport in September of this year. A TSA worker in Miami was asked to submit to a body scan to illustrate the use of the machine to fellow coworkers. In the weeks following the body scan demonstration, he was taunted by coworkers about the size of his genitalia. According to the police report, after the taunting became too much to take, the TSA employee beat one of the taunting coworkers in the parking lot with a police baton.

It is reported that there have been no independent studies to determine the radiation risks passengers are exposed to by the body scans. Even pregnant women are put through the body scans. From my experience as a personal injury lawyer, doctors almost never order X-rays, CT scans, or other similar tests on pregnant women because of the risks radiation poses to the baby. Personally, I trust medical doctors over government employees. According to a recent government study, pregnant women and children should not be subjected to airport body scans. Reports like this certainly don't help the TSA's position.

An organization called EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) has filed a lawsuit to stop the TSA's use of body scanners pending an independent review of the program. EPIC calls the program "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective" and argues in their suit that the federal agency's use of full body scans violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment.

The legal arguments for and against the use of full body scanners are layed out in the briefs. An interesting read if you have the time, EPIC's Opening Brief for Petitioners, EPIC's Emergency Motion for Stay and the government's Opposition to Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief. The entire legal challenge may come down to this statement from EPIC's brief "Respondents have broad authority to undertake screening of travelers at airports in the United States, but such authority is not unbounded." I hope that is true. I've read reports where the newest terrorist plot involves hiding explosives in body cavities. TSA has acknowledged body scans will not detect contraband that has been hidden in that method. If there are no restrictions on the government's authority to search us if we choose to fly, then based on the current pattern of reacting to each terrorist plot, body cavity searches may be next.

By now many have heard of the perverse agenda of a group that identifies themselves as the Westboro Baptist church. This small group led by Fred Phelps, Sr. often shows up at military funerals and other high profile tragedies with protest signs designed to outrage and offend the victims. For example in West Virginia where a cave in killed 25 miners they held up signs "Thank God for Dead Miners." At military funerals the signs read "You're Going to Hell," "Semper Fi Fags," and "Thank God for IEDs."

On March 3, 2006, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, US Marine Corps, died in Iraq. When the family buried this young hero, Westboro Baptist church was there, at the funeral, with their hate filled signs. In addition, they distributed fliers with young Matthew's picture and the words "Burial of an Ass." Freedom of speech was alive and well and none of the protesters were arrested or prevented from sharing their hate of America and our troops with anyone that would listen. However, all actions have consequences. The Snyder family filed a civil suit against Fred Phelps and his church and on October 31, 2007 a jury returned a verdict of $2.9 million dollars in compensatory damages with an additional $8 million in punitive damages. In our system, the jury speaks for the community and punitive damages are designed to punish outrageous conduct and deter future conduct. The judge reduced the punitive portion of the verdict to $2.1 million for a total verdict of $5 million dollars.

In a surprising and controversial decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court judgment, ruling Westboro's protests were protected from civil liability by the First Amendment.

Recently the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Snyder v. Phelps et al. The issue the Supreme Court will decide is whether the First Amendment protects protesters at a funeral from liability for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress. On October 6, 2010 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case and the transcript is an interesting read.

It is undisputed the Westboro Baptist Church and the Phelps family use the funerals of dead soldiers to promote their homophobic agenda. By engaging in the outrageous behavior of attacking families at funerals, a time when they are most vulnerable, Westboro gains large amounts of publicity. Ultimately publicity is what they crave without any consideration to the collateral damage inflicted to emotional states of mourning families. As a Georgia Trial Lawyer, I believe in the First Amendment and the Constitution. However, the First Amendment has never provided blanket immunity from civil claims. Hopefully, the Snyder family will obtain justice in this case and the Supreme Court will rule that Westboro Baptist Church is responsible for the harms they cause when they protest at funerals.

(Phelps family member protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court prior to oral argument)

In 2005, under extreme pressure from the insurance industry, the Georgia Legislature passed sweeping tort reform measures (known as SB3) drastically changing Georgia law. At the heart of SB3 is OCGA § 51-13-1, which limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions. Under this law no matter what value a jury places on a human life, the loss of a limb, the ability to see, or other catastrophic injury the award must be reduced to an arbitrary limit imposed by the Legislature. Today, the Supreme Court of Georgia in an unanimous 7-0 decision, Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt et al., held noneconomic caps on damages unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled "OCGA § 51-13-1 clearly nullifies the jury's finding of fact regarding damages and thereby undermines the jury's basic function...Flat caps on noneconomic compensatory damages...violate this State's constitutional guarantee that 'the right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate.'"

As one who believes in protection of our sacred constitutional rights and also a strong believer in victims' rights, I could not be more pleased with the Supreme Court's decision. Today is a great day for Georgia and for Betty Nestlehutt. Click here to watch Betty Nestlehutt's story.

Mrs. Nestlehutt's lawyer, Adam Malone, commented on the Court's decision. "The bedrock of our democracy depends upon our ability to self govern at the ballot box and in the jury box," Malone said. "Any attempt by the government to invade either is an assault on what separates America from the rest of the world."

In the arena of medical malpractice, the law in Georgia has always favored hospitals and doctors. While the number of deaths and serious injuries from medical errors are at an all time high recovery for injured patients (settlements and verdicts) are the lowest they have been in nearly 20 years. Georgia medical malpractice lawyers continue to face an uphill battle helping malpractice victims recover. So even though times are still tough for malpractice victims, at least the constitutional promise of a trial by jury remains.

Since 1863, Georgia law has required that those practicing medicine for compensation must bring to the exercise of their profession a reasonable degree of care and skill, and Georgia law has provided that any injury resulting from a want of such care and skill shall be a tort for which recovery may be had. In 2005, all that changed, and ER physicians in our State were no longer required to practice with care and skill. This new law, codified at OCGA § 51-1-29.5 (c), was part of the tort reform package proposed by the insurance industry and passed by the Georgia Legislature in 2005. Those injured or killed by ER malpractice can no longer recover unless they can prove a much higher burden of gross negligence. This week in a 4-3 decision, Gliemmo et al. v. Cousineau et al., the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the ER gross negligence statute as constitutional.

The case began in 2007, when Carol Gliemmo presented to St. Francis Hospital with serious pain behind her eyes, a sudden snapping in her head, and elevated blood pressure. Mark Cousineau, MD of Emergency Medical Specialists of Columbus, P.C. wrote her a prescription for Valium and sent her home. Two days later her primary care physician ordered a CT scan, which revealed a brain hemorrhage. As a result of the brain hemorrhage going untreated Carol Gliemmo was paralyzed.

So, even though expert physicians can agree that Dr. Cousineau breached the standard of care required of emergency physicians and caused this woman's paralysis she cannot recover under Georgia law. It's still difficult to believe this is the state of the law in Georgia. I'm certain Georgia medical malpractice lawyers will continue to fight for injured victims, but times are grim in Georgia. Of course Atticus Finch would say courage is knowing you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.

In 2005, by the narrowest of margins, the Georgia Legislature passed sweeping changes to Georgia's tort laws, known as SB3. Included in those changes was the new "Offer of Settlement" statute, codified at OCGA § 9-11-68. The Offer of Settlement statute has created a new mechanism for punishing a party to litigation with attorney's fees. Georgia already has two statutes (OCGA §§ 9-15-14 and 13-6-11) that subject parties to statutory penalties, including attorney's fees, for bringing frivolous suits or unreasonably litigating matters. The Offer of Settlement statute is different in it applies to all cases even meritorious suits that prevail at trial. This statute sets up situations where injured victims may win a jury verdict but end up with a net loss because the insurance companies' attorney's fees exceed the verdict. This week, the Supreme Court of Georgia in a 5-2 decision upheld the Offer of Settlement statute overruling the trial court's finding that the statute violated the Georgia Consitution's right to access the courts.

In her dissent, the honorable Justice Hunstein artfully explained why this statute does in fact violate our constitutional access to the courts as follows: "OCGA § 9-11-68(b)(1) penalizes plaintiffs with meritorious causes of action for an impossiblity, namely, their failure to see into the future so as to calculate the precise amount a factfinder may award them for the damages they reasonably believed they sustained at the hands of the defendants...No party intending to file a cause of action in tort can foresee whether she will recover 'enough' money to avoid the effect of OCGA § 9-11-68(b)(1)."

The practical effect of this statute is that it will make it extremely difficult for middle class Georgia citizens to pursue meritorious cases. As discussed above, if an injured person fails to recover "enough" money from the jury, the insurance company can take a judgment against the injured person for the attorney's fees they paid defending the case. Those without significant assets will not be deterred from pursing meritorious cases, because there is no way to collect a judgment against someone that has nothing (also known as "judgment proof"). The wealthy will still seek justice and their day in court knowing they can afford the unlikely result of a lower than expected jury verdict in their favor. The middle class injured victim is the only one truly stung by this new law. Many will still seek justice, but there are those that will forgo pursing recovery for their broken bones and medical expenses because the fear of having to pay for the insurance companies' lawyer. This new law is just one of many challenges an experienced Georgia personal injury lawyer must negotiate in the mine field that is civil litigation.