Whenever there is an airplane crash, you inevitably hear the media talk about the “black box,” i.e., the data recorders that often provide accident investigators with valuable evidence when trying to piece together what went wrong. These days, many cars contain their own black box-type devices, which can prove equally valuable when preserving evidence for a potential personal injury lawsuit. Of course, this only helps if the vehicle itself is properly preserved and not lost or destroyed following the accident.

French v. Perez

A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, French v. Perez, addressed just such a scenario. This case revolves around a December 2014 auto accident. The plaintiff was a passenger in his sister’s car. It collided with another vehicle operated by the defendant and owned by the defendant’s wife.

We have all heard the famous police warning, “You have the right to remain silent.” It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law: No person can be compelled to testify against him or herself in a criminal proceeding. What about a civil lawsuit, such as a personal injury claim, arising from a potential criminal act? How does the Fifth Amendment affect a victim’s ability to seek compensation?

U-Haul Company of Arizona v. Rutland

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed a case dealing with these issues. In U-Haul Company of Arizona v. Rutland, a widow sued multiple parties, alleging they were responsible for her husband’s death in an October 2015 car accident. To be more specific, a drunk driver operating a rented U-Haul truck crossed a center line and hit the victim’s car in a head-on collision. Police subsequently arrested the driver and charged him with vehicular homicide and DUI, among other charges.

Back in 2017, we discussed a personal injury lawsuit dismissed by the Georgia Court of Appeals. The case involved a Georgia defendant and Michigan plaintiffs, but the underlying subject of the plaintiffs’ personal claim arose during their vacation in the Dominican Republic. The Court of Appeals determined the Dominican courts were the proper venue to resolve the plaintiffs’ allegations. But the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which reversed the Court of Appeals in a judgment issued on February 4 of this year.

La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc.

To briefly review the facts of the case. The plaintiffs are a married couple. During their Dominican vacation, the wife was injured during a fall from a collapsed zip-line operated by a company known as CSA. The plaintiffs’ subsequently filed a personal injury claim in Georgia state court against a second company, Signature Research, that was responsible for inspecting and certifying CSA’s zip lines.