Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Columbus Jury Awards $650,000 to Driver Seriously Injured in Trucking Accident

January 29, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When it comes to trucking accidents, Georgia has what is known as a “direct action” rule. This means that if you are injured due to a commercial truck driver’s negligence, you can name not only the trucking company but also its insurance carrier as defendants. This is an exception to the normal rule. In a personal injury case arising from a normal car accident, you cannot directly sue the insurer. This is because it is generally considered unfair to the trucking company if the jury is made aware that an insurance company is paying for any potential damages.

Wallace v. Wiley Sanders Truck Lines, Inc.

Trucking companies are understandably unhappy with the direct action rule, especially after they lose a lawsuit. But their complaints often fall on deaf ears. Consider this recent case from Columbus, Georgia.

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.

Georgia Judges Disagree About Need for Expert Testimony in Defective Vehicle Case

January 8, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Expert testimony is often the key to winning a product liability lawsuit. Anyone can offer an opinion on the safety, or lack thereof, of a given product. But trial courts must go one step further and determine the qualifications of an expert before admitting his or her testimony. Under Georgia law, expert testimony must be “based on sufficient facts or data.” It must be the “the product of reliable principles and method,” and the expert must personally apply those principles and methods to the case at hand.

Moore v. Cottrell, Inc.

In a recent case, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony in a product liability lawsuit. The plaintiff was driving a car hauler with a two-level trailer. The hauler did not have a built-in ladder, but there was a portable ladder attached so the driver could access the upper level of the trailer.

Georgia Court Tosses $35M Verdict in Theme Park Beating Case

January 1, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Can a property owner be held liable for persons injured due to gang-related activity on or near their premises? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question. The appeals court was asked to review a $35 million verdict issued against a popular Cobb County theme park after a man was savagely beaten following an incident in the facility’s parking lot.

Six Flags Over Georgia II LP v. Martin

As the Court of Appeals explained in its opinion, the theme park is “located in a well-known, high-crime area, which has been the site of numerous instances of criminal gang activity.” There had also been a number of reported incidents where violence inside the park “spilled over” to outside locations.

Railroad Not Liable for Fatal Georgia Crossing Accident

December 28, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

According to statistics from the Federal Railroad Administration, there are more than 2,000 vehicle-train collisions at railroad crossings every year. When such accidents result in serious injury or death to innocent motorists, it is only logical the victims would want to hold the railroad responsible. But in some cases Georgia law may frustrate these efforts, as illustrated by a recent federal appeals court decision.

Long v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

This case involves a fatal accident that occurred at the Emory Street Crossing in Covington, Georgia. In 1974, the Georgia Department of Transportation contracted with a private railroad to install new gates and crossing signals at the Emory Street Crossing. Some years later, the railroad made some changes to the design, which resulted in a 36-foot gap between the installed protective devices and the main railroad line.

Georgia Court Holds Underinsured Motorist Policy Would Not “Duplicate” Prior Damages

December 18, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are seriously hurt in an accident, there are many types of legal injuries that may entitle you to compensation. In addition to paying your immediate medical bills following an accident, you may face future expenses for ongoing care. You may also face lost wages—again, present and future—as well as pain and suffering.

In car accident cases, if a negligent driver lacks sufficient insurance to compensate you for all of your injuries, your own insurance carrier may be responsible pursuant to uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. The exact amount of coverage you receive depends on the specific language of your policy. Unfortunately, litigation often arises between accident victims and their insurance carriers over the interpretation of such language.

Mabry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Georgia Mother Allowed to Proceed With Lawsuit Against Daughter’s Auto Insurer

December 13, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you have been in a car accident, your insurance company may attempt to employ every proverbial trick in the book to deny you coverage. Georgia courts are also predisposed to strictly interpret insurance contracts to avoid any ambiguity that may favor the insured party. There are exceptions, as illustrated by a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision.

King-Morrow v. American Family Insurance Company

In this case, the plaintiff was a woman living with her adult daughter. The daughter held an automobile insurance policy that included uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The UM coverage applied to “relatives living in the policy holder’s household,” which included the mother.

Judges Throw Out Part of $1.6M Verdict in Pedestrian Death Case

December 7, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When a car accident involves two or more vehicles, an injured person may seek damages against all responsible parties. The jury must then apportion fault among all of the parties—including possibly the victim—when awarding damages. While judges typically do not second-guess a jury’s apportionment of fault, there are exceptional occasions in which the courts find a jury’s verdict simply cannot be supported by the available evidence.

Redmon v. Daniel

Here is a recent example from here in Georgia. The victim in this case was a male pedestrian walking along a highway exit ramp in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Two vehicles were using the ramp, a Chevrolet and a garbage truck. The Chevrolet struck the victim first. The driver later testified the victim was “in the middle of the road” and she did not see him until the impact.

Georgia Truck Driver Not Entitled to Insurance Benefits After Getting Hit By Log

December 4, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Uninsured motorist coverage is designed, among other things, to compensate you if you are in an accident with an unknown vehicle. A common example is a “hit and run” where the offending driver speeds away and is never identified. In such cases, your insurance carrier is supposed to provide uninsured motorist benefits. You should always keep in mind that insurance is a contract governed by state law, and as with any contract, there may be unusual circumstances that are not covered by the policy.

American Alternative Insurance Company v. Bennett

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed such an unusual case. The plaintiff in this case was driving his tractor trailer down a road in Brantley County, Georgia. According to his testimony, a second tractor-trailer transporting “a load of logs” passed him going in the opposite direction. Shortly thereafter, “a log hanging off of the oncoming log truck struck plaintiff’s tractor, shattering the windshield and causing shattered glass to impact the plaintiff’s eyes and face.”