Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Georgia Court Affirms $150M Wrongful Death Verdict Against Automaker

December 26, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Every day, millions of parents entrust the safety of their children to the cars they drive. If there is a defect in a vehicle’s manufacture or design, a parent may not learn about until it is too late and their child has paid the price. When that happens, parents understandably want to hold the vehicle manufacturer responsible.

Chrysler Group, LLC v. Walden

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed such a terrible and tragic case. In 2012, a woman was driving her 4-year-old nephew to an activity when her Jeep Grand Cherokee was rear-ended by another driver. Upon impact, the Jeep’s fuel tank exploded, setting the vehicle on fire. According to court records, the 4-year-old “was alive and conscious while the Grand Cherokee was on fire and may have lived up to a minute with flames in contact with his body” before he died.

Disputed Traffic Sign Leads to Revival of Accident Lawsuit

December 17, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

As a general rule, a driver is considered negligent, and therefore responsible for a car accident, if he or she disregards traffic signs. For example, if a driver speeds through a red light and hits another vehicle, he or she is liable for any damages sustained by the other driver. In some car accident cases, however, it may not be immediately apparent whether a driver was reckless in failing to obey traffic signs.

Richards v. Robinson

Here is an illustration from a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision. This case involves a two-car accident that occurred in Gwinnett County. The defendant was driving a school bus in the far-right eastbound lane of Five Forks Trickhum Road, which intersects the Ronald Reagan Parkway. The plaintiff was driving his vehicle on the eastbound land of Five Forks Trickhum Road.

Georgia Company Faces Accident Lawsuit After “Entrusting” Vehicle to Employee With Multiple DUIs

December 9, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Negligent entrustment is an issue that frequently arises in car accident cases. The basic idea is that if the defendant “entrusts” his own vehicle to someone who subsequently injures a third party, the third party can seek damages against the defendant if he had “actual knowledge that the driver is incompetent or habitually reckless,” according to a 2010 decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals. So, for example, if you loan your car to someone you know has a history of drunk driving, and that person proceeds to get drunk and plow your car into a minivan, the passengers in the minivan can sue you under the theory of negligent entrustment.

Cullara v. Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.

The Court of Appeals recently addressed the applicability of negligent entrustment in another case where the defendant disputes whether it had actual knowledge of a driver’s recklessness.

Georgia Supreme Court Clears Asbestos Lawsuit to Go to Trial

December 5, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

A company may be held liable under Georgia law for any defects in the design or manufacture of its products. Similarly, a manufacturer may be responsible if it fails to properly label or warn consumers about the known risks of using a product. Defective design and failure-to-warn claims are distinct categories of product liability, and there are cases in which a manufacturer may be liable for one and not the other.

CertainTeed Corporation v. Fletcher

Along those lines, the Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products could be tried on a defective design claim, while simultaneously rejecting a failure-to-warn claim made by the same plaintiff.

Injured Electrical Worker’s “Silence” Not Grounds for Dismissing Lawsuit

November 30, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a personal injury lawsuit, the defendant may try to avoid responsibility by accusing the plaintiff of causing or contributing to his or her own injury. Georgia law refers to this as “contributory negligence.” The basic idea, according to a 2000 Georgia Court of Appeals decision, is that if a plaintiff’s own “failure to use ordinary care for his own safety is the sole proximate cause of his injuries,” then he cannot recover damages from a defendant, even if that defendant was negligent.

Miller v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

More recently, the Court of Appeals considered the question of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence in a case in which he was unable to communicate his account of the underlying accident. This tragic case began in 2009, when the plaintiff, a man employed by an electrical subcontractor, was tasked with installing light fixtures in a building. This required re-routing certain wires through an electrical junction box on the building’s roof.

Georgia Gas Station Owner Faces Trial Over Delivery Driver’s Injuries

November 26, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a premises liability case, Georgia law holds that a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he or she had “equal or greater” knowledge of a hazard relative to the defendant. In other words, if you know there is a dangerous condition on someone else’s property and, in spite of that knowledge, you are injured, a judge may reject your personal injury lawsuit against the property owner.

Travis v. Quiktrip Corporation

A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates how the question of a plaintiff’s “superior or equal” knowledge is dealt with in practice. The plaintiff was a tanker driver who delivered gasoline to a gas station owned and managed by the defendants. On the day in question, the plaintiff was making a delivery. The defendants required the plaintiff to manually measure the underground tank levels before and after each delivery. As the plaintiff later testified, he knew other drivers who had been “fired on the spot” for failing to follow this policy.

Do I Need to Preserve My Wrecked Car Following an Accident?

November 18, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In any kind of personal injury lawsuit, it is critical for the parties to the case to preserve any evidence that may be relevant to the litigation. If a party intentionally or negligently destroys relevant evidence, this is known as spoliation, and a judge may impose sanctions, up to and including dismissing the case (if the plaintiff is at fault) or issuing a default judgment against the defendant. However, a court must also consider all relevant facts and circumstances in deciding whether or not sanctions are necessary.

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. Koch

A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates how not all spoliation is fatal to a plaintiff’s case. This decision involves an ongoing product liability claim arising from a fatal car accident. The victim was driving his vehicle on a Georgia interstate “when his left rear tire detached,” according to court records. The vehicle “swerved out of control,” hit a guardrail, overturned “several times,” and finally came to a stop in a ditch.

Is a Georgia Landlord Responsible for Defective Construction of a Building?

November 13, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Premises liability refers to a property owner’s responsibility for certain torts that occur within said property. A common example is a slip-and-fall accident. Let’s say you are shopping and slip on a puddle of water in the middle of the store, causing you to fall and injure yourself. The store owner may be liable if you can prove he or she was negligent in failing to notice and clean up the puddle.

How does premises liability work if the property is rented? In other words, if the store owner leases its space from another entity, such as a shopping center, is the landlord also liable for injuries to patrons? As a general rule, the answer is no. Georgia law expressly states that a landlord who has “fully parted with possession” of a property–i.e., leased it to a tenant–is not “responsible to third persons for damages” arising from the tenant’s negligence. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. First, a landlord can be held liable for “defective construction” of the leased building itself. Second, the landlord may be liable for “damages arising from the failure to keep the premises in repair.”

Pajaro v. South Georgia Bank

Can My Facebook Page Be Used Against Me in a Personal Injury Lawsuit?

November 3, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Most of us participate in some form of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. But because social media makes it so easy to keep in touch with friends, family members, and colleagues, we often forget that most of what we post to these sites become public record. There is no true privacy online, and even if you later delete an embarrassing (or incriminating) message, there is no guarantee it has not been stored somewhere else, waiting to be used against you at a later time.

One place an unfortunate social media post may work against you is a personal injury lawsuit. In a typical personal injury claim, the plaintiff seeks compensation for economic damages–i.e., medical costs and lost wages incurred as a result of the defendant’s negligence and noneconomic damages for things like “pain and suffering.” The defendant, in turn, will look for any evidence to minimize a potential damage award, and if possible to prove the plaintiff suffered no genuine injury to begin with.

Social media can offer a bonanza of exculpatory evidence to an aggressive defendant. For example, let’s say a plaintiff is in a car accident and sues the defendant for negligence. The plaintiff alleges that she suffered permanent injuries in the accident and is therefore unable to perform the same recreational activities that she could before the accident. If the defense subsequently finds a picture on the plaintiff’s Facebook page of her kayaking two weeks after the accident, that would obviously not be helpful to the plaintiff’s case.

Georgia Judge Erred in Requiring Expert Testimony to Prove Woman Died in House Fire

October 31, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Expert testimony is often a critical component of a personal injury case. Judges and jurors are not technical experts and often require assistance in understanding evidence. When it comes to “simple negligence,” though, expert testimony is generally unnecessary. A jury does not need help when common sense is sufficient to weigh the evidence and reach a logical conclusion.

Gardner v. Clark

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed a tragic case in which a trial judge improperly demanded expert testimony where none was necessary. The plaintiffs in this case were the children of a woman who died in November 2009. The mother lived in a mobile home that she rented from the defendant.