“Get your story straight” is good advice in life, and particularly when dealing with litigation. When a party to a personal injury lawsuit offers contradictory testimony, it can have a devastating effect on their case. In Georgia, courts enforce what is known as the Prophecy rule, which holds “when a party has given contradictory testimony, and when that party relies exclusively on that testimony in opposition to summary judgment, a court must construe the contradictory testimony against him.” This means if you offer two accounts of what happened, the judge must disregard the account most favorable to your case.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. v. Shepard

But it is not always obvious when a party has run afoul of the Prophecy rule. For example, a seven-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals sharply divided recently on whether a defendant in a motor vehicle accident case fatally contradicted his own testimony. The majority sided with the plaintiff and the trial judge’s decision to award him partial summary judgment.

On July 13, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an interesting decision regarding the use of expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. Georgia law requires a person alleging malpractice present an affidavit from “an expert competent to testify” as to the medical provider’s negligent act. Without such an affidavit, the trial court must dismiss the lawsuit.

Dubois v. Brantley

In this case, the plaintiff suffered serious complications following surgery to repair a hernia. This was an outpatient procedure, but a few days after the surgery, the plaintiff returned to the hospital, showing symptoms of pancreatitis. He later slipped into a coma and required nearly a month of intensive care and several additional surgeries.

As a general rule, a property owner is liable for any dangerous conditions that he knows about or reasonably should have known about. The former is known as “actual notice,” while the latter is “constructive notice.” This applies not just to private property owners, but also city and county governments, as a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrated.

City of Fitzgerald v. Caruthers

In this case, the victim himself was a municipal employee. While walking home one night from his job at the City of Fitzgerald’s public works department, a tree limb fell on the victim, knocking him unconscious and leaving him with serious injuries to his back, neck and eye.

In Georgia, most dog owners can be held liable if their animal bites or injures someone. Unfortunately, “most dog owners” do not include police officers, according to a recent Georgia Supreme Court decision. The justices reversed a lower appeals court which previously held a police officer could be sued for failure to control a police dog that injured an 11-year-old child.

Eshleman v. Key

The defendant in this case is a DeKalb County police officer who is responsible for the care of a police dog. The officer keeps the dog at her home in Walton County. In November 2011, the officer placed the dog in a portable kennel outside her home. Due to the officer’s apparent failure to secure the kennel door, the dog escaped and encountered the child of one of the officer’s neighbors. The dog subsequently attacked the child, seriously injuring his arm.

In Georgia, an employer is normally liable for the tortious acts of its employees. This is known as the doctrine of “respondeat superior.” But what happens when an employee injures someone outside the scope of their employment? A federal judge in Valdosta recently addressed such a situation.

United States Liability Insurance Company v. Jenkins

A couple enrolled their three-year-old child at a daycare center. One day, an employee of the daycare took the child out in her personal vehicle to go on a shopping trip. Neither the parents nor the daycare center owner gave permission for the employee to remove the child from the daycare center. While at a convenience store, the employee hit and injured the child with her personal vehicle.

The rules of the road are not the same for all vehicles. Emergency vehicles including fire trucks, police cars and ambulances enjoy certain legal privileges. Under Georgia law, when such vehicles are actually “responding to an emergency call,” they can run red lights or stop signs without stopping. However, emergency vehicles must still “slow down as may be necessary for safe operation” and operators have the same duty “to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons” as any other motorist.

Brown v. DeKalb County

Here is a recent example of how Georgia courts apply the emergency vehicle doctrine. This case arises from a 2011 accident in DeKalb County. A county fire truck collided with another vehicle which had five passengers, including three children. The passengers subsequently sued DeKalb County.

On June 15, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an important decision in a case that may affect the rights of uninsured individuals who attempt to contest large hospital bills. Victims of motor vehicle accidents often have to deal with the physical, mental and financial stress of recovering from their injuries. Unpaid medical bills often increase this stress, especially when hospitals file liens against a victim’s insurance benefits or any potential judgment against the persons responsible for the accident.

Bowden v. The Medical Center, Inc.

The victim in this case was a 21-year-old passenger travelling in a rental car one evening in 2011. The car was in an accident, and emergency medical personnel transported the victim to a Columbus hospital. She required surgery for a broken leg, a three-day hospital stay and additional outpatient physical therapy. The hospital ultimately billed the victim over $21,400 for medical services. She did not have any health insurance.

In Georgia, product manufacturers are held to a strict liability standard. This means they are responsible for any injuries caused to individuals by a product that is “not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended, and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.” The “proximate cause” requirement is key. Even if a product is clearly defective in its design, the manufacturer is only liable under Georgia law if that defect was the direct cause of the injury. “Direct” in this context means that no intervening act by a third party is responsible for the victim’s injury. For example, if a driver causes an car accident through his or her own negligent driving, the manufacturer of the car cannot be held strictly liable for any design defects that may have contributed to the accident.

A federal appeals court recently explained the application of the proximate cause requirement in a horrific case arising from a truck accident inside a repair shop. Although the victim presented evidence suggesting the truck manufacturer failed to include an important safety feature, the courts held it was immaterial due to an intervening act by the vehicle’s owner.

Weaver v. PACCAR Inc.

Winning a personal injury judgment is not always the end of the matter. If a defendant or his insurance company refuses to pay up, a victim may face years of additional court proceedings. In some cases, a victim may even have to fight his or her own insurance company, as a recent Georgia Supreme Court decision illustrates.

Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company v. Castellanos

A man was seriously injured in a 2009 automobile accident. The other driver was at fault. The victim filed a personal injury lawsuit in Georgia state court. The defendant’s insurance company defended him at trial. Indeed, the defendant never appeared in the case or made any effort to defend himself. Not surprisingly, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the victim and awarded him approximately $3,700 in compensatory damages and another $3,200 in punitive damages.

Motor vehicle accidents often leave victims struggling to pay medical bills. Even if victims have insurance coverage through their employer, plan administrators may look for any loophole possible to deny benefits. A recent federal case in Georgia illustrates just how extensive litigation may become in such circumstances.

Faison v. Donalsonville Hospital, Inc.

This case began when a Georgia State Patrol officer attempted a routine traffic stop when he observed a motorcycle traveling 15 miles per hour over the highway speed limit. The motorcycle driver, who apparently feared a stop because he did not have a valid license or proper registration, decided to increase his speed in an attempt to elude the officer. Traveling upwards of 120 miles per hour, the driver lost control his motorcycle while navigating a curve, causing the vehicle to skid off the road. The driver suffered serious injuries as a result of this accident.