$7,250,000 Medical
Malpractice
$3,650,000 Motorcycle
Accident
$3,250,000 Wrongful
Death
$1,500,000 Trucking
Accident
$1,250,000 Car
Accident
$1,245,000 Car
Accident
Justia Lawyer Rating
Avvo Rating Badge
Super Lawyers Badge
AV Preeminent Badge
Atlanta Magazine Badge

|

Georgia property owners are required to exercise “ordinary care” in keeping their invited guests and members of the public safe. This does not mean the owner must absolutely guarantee a person’s safety. For example, under most circumstances the owner is not liable for a criminal act committed by a third party on its property. This is considered an “intervening” act that absolves the owner of any liability. However, there is an exception to this general rule when there is evidence that the criminal act itself was “reasonably foreseeable” by the owner.

Rautenberg v. Pope

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Rautenberg v. Pope, offers a useful explanation of when a crime may be considered “foreseeable.” The plaintiff in this case is a semi-truck driver. He rented a parking space for his truck from the defendant. One day, the plaintiff parked his truck in his space and retired to his sleeping cab. Sometime later, the plaintiff awoke to find “an individual at the window with a tool–a long pry bar or screwdriver.” The man quickly left. The plaintiff then exited his cab and found himself on the step of another truck that was parked beside his vehicle. The other man was driving this truck. He started to drive away–with the plaintiff “hanging on the side mirror.” Eventually, the plaintiff fell off the other truck, which proceeded to run him over twice.

Continue reading ›

|

When an accident involves a commercial truck, there are usually records available with respect to the vehicle’s safety and maintenance. Such records can be made available to an injured victim during the discovery process of a personal injury lawsuit. If those records are improperly withheld–or even destroyed before they can be disclosed–a trial judge has the authority to impose sanctions on the offending party.

Allen v. Sanchez

It is important to note, however, that a judge will only impose sanctions for “spoliation” of evidence when certain standards are met. An ongoing federal personal injury lawsuit, Allen v. Sanchez, helps illustrate how courts deal with these situations.

Continue reading ›

|

Each year, many Georgians celebrate the 4th of July by purchasing and setting off their own fireworks despite the known safety risks. Unfortunately, this can lead to tragic outcomes. Not only is there is the potential for something to go wrong when setting off fireworks in an unsupervised environment–the mere act of transporting them can pose a risk to life and limb as well.

Pisciotti v. Abney

A recent lawsuit filed in Valdosta, Georgia federal court, Pisciotti v. Abney, offers just one example of what can go wrong. This case involves an accident that occurred on the 4th of July in 2017. Four teenagers were traveling in a Jeep through Hamilton County, Florida. The driver is one of the defendants in this case, while the victim was one of his passengers.

Continue reading ›

|

When a person is seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, the responsible insurance company may face conflicting obligations under Georgia law. On the one hand, the insurer must settle a valid claim in good faith. For example, if an insurer knows its policyholder is responsible for causing an accident, a refusal to settle with the victim can make the insurer liable for any excess personal injury award against the negligent driver.

On the other hand, an insurer may also be responsible to any medical provider that files a lien after providing services to the accident victim. That is to say, if the insurer simply cuts a check to the victim without first checking to see if there are any hospital liens, the hospital could turn around and sue the insurer for the amount owed (plus additional damages).

Kemper v. Equity Insurance Company

Continue reading ›

|

Motorcycle accidents often leave the victim with devastating injuries. So, when the accident is even partially the result of a defect in the design or production of the motorcycle itself, the manufacturer may be liable for damages under Georgia law. However, a judge or jury may decide that the motorcyclist was also partially responsible and reduce the manufacturer’s liability accordingly.

Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. v. Johns

This is precisely what happened in a recent case before the Georgia Court of Appeals, Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. v. Johns. A jury determined that the manufacturer of a motorcycle was 51% responsible for an accident that injured the plaintiff. Both sides appealed the verdict for different reasons, but the appeals court declined to second-guess the jury.

Continue reading ›

|

When it comes to personal injury claims, you should never make assumptions. For instance, even if you believe an accident was the result of a faulty piece of equipment, you still need to prove it in court. Do not assume the judge (or jury) will just take your word for it that “it must have been broken.”

Lakeshore Contracting, LLC v. Lopez-Hernandez

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Lakeshore Contracting, LLC v. Lopez-Hernandez, offers a useful illustration. This case involves an accident that occurred at a construction site. The defendant is a general contractor. In 2016, a customer hired the defendant to remodel a retail store. The defendant hired two subcontractors to perform the actual remodeling work. One of the subcontractors then hired the plaintiff to assist him.

Continue reading ›

|

You probably have heard the term “wrongful death” in the context of personal injury law. Basically, this is a lawsuit that alleges a defendant’s negligence led to the death of the victim. The victim’s estate or heirs then have the legal right to seek damages from the responsible parties.

Some states also recognize a lesser-known type of claim referred to as “wrongful birth.” For example, if a doctor commits malpractice by failing to inform expectant parents of a serious genetic defect in their unborn child, the parents could bring a lawsuit arguing they would have aborted the fetus but-for the doctor’s negligence. The parents could then seek compensation to offset the additional costs of caring for their child.

Norman v. Xytex Corporation

Continue reading ›

|

Parents entrust their children to a number of responsible adults every day, including teachers and bus drivers. When something goes wrong and the child is injured–or even killed–while under another person’s care, the parents understandably want to hold that person responsible. Unfortunately, the law does not always help parents in this regard, particularly when the responsible person happens to be a public employee.

Odum v. Harn

A recent ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Odum v. Harn, typifies the uphill battle parents face when seeking accountability. This case involves a 2013 accident that resulted in the death of a 5-year-old child. The victim was riding on a Bryan County school bus operated by the defendant.

Continue reading ›

|

Workers’ compensation is normally the “exclusive remedy” for Georgia workers seeking benefits from their employer as the result of a work-related accident. By “work-related,” we mean that the employee’s injuries “arose out of and in the course of his employment.” In most cases, it is clear whether or not a worker’s injury was related to his employment. There are other cases where employers–and occasionally courts–may disagree as to the employee’s exact status at the time of their injury.

Kil v. Legend Brothers, LLC

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Kil v. Legend Brothers, LLC, offered just such a scenario. This case involved a restaurant employee who was shot during an armed robbery attempt. His employer subsequently denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Continue reading ›

|

There are certain types of records that are considered inadmissible in Georgia personal injury cases. For example, there is the well-known attorney-client privilege. There is also a mental health privilege. This generally protects any communications between a patient and his or her psychologist or other mental health care professional.

Advantage Behavioral Health Systems v. Cleveland

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Advantage Behavioral Health Systems v. Cleveland, illustrates the broad scope of the mental health privilege. This tragic case involves the suicide of a young man. The victim went to a hospital emergency room in Athens, Georgia, in March 2016, telling doctors he had a “history of suicidal thoughts, bipolar disorder, severe depression, hallucinations, and alcohol use disorder,” according to court records.

Continue reading ›