Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

The Legal Risks and Responsibilities of Bicyclists in Georgia

May 13, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Bicycle accidents occur all too frequently in Georgia and throughout the country. A 2012 federal study showed that 17 bicyclists died in accidents in Georgia, 11th highest among all states. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution further noted last year there were more than 129 bicycle collisions in Fulton and DeKalb counties alone in 2013, highlighting the potential safety risks of riding a two-wheel vehicle on the road.

But bicycle safety is not a one-way street. In Georgia, bicycles are considered “motor vehicles,” meaning bicyclists must obey traffic signals and follow certain safety practices. A bicyclist can never assume he or she has the right-of-way when riding into traffic. A recent decision by a federal judge in Georgia illustrates the perils for bicyclists who fail to obey traffic laws, then attempt to recover damages when they are subsequently injured in an accident.

Marshall v. Penland

Store Not Liable for Women Who Tripped Over Child Sitting Behind Her

May 8, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Premises liability is often associated with “slip and fall” cases. For example, if a person slips in a puddle in the middle of supermarket and injures himself, the store can be held liable if it knew about the water and failed to mop it up in a timely fashion. But premises liability may arise from many types of hazards. Indeed, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed a case where the alleged hazard was an unattended child sitting on the floor.

Barbour-Amir v. Comcast of Georgia/Virginia, Inc.

This case began when a woman went to a store in July 2010 to pay her cell phone bill. According to court records, “The store was narrow and crowded,” with several customers waiting in line. The woman waited her turn, proceeded to pay her bill, and as she turned to leave, she “tripped over a young child who was sitting on the floor behind her.” The woman fell to the ground and suffered injuries to her back, knees and ankle.

Corrections Officer May Be Sued Over Dangerous Lawn Mower

May 1, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Government employees are not subject to the same standards as members of the general public. As a general rule in Georgia, a state employee enjoys “official immunity” when exercising discretion in the performance of his or her duties. Only when a state employee fails to carry out a specifically mandated “ministerial duty” can an aggrieved party seek damages in court.

Cooley v. Bryant

Recently a divided seven-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed this distinction between ministerial and discretionary acts. The plaintiff in this case is an inmate at a state prison. He suffered serious injuries when he lost control of a lawn mower assigned to him during a work detail. The mower’s “kill switch,” which is supposed to stop the engine in the event of such a loss of control, failed. The plaintiff subsequently sued the corrections officer supervising the work detail for “negligent inspection and negligent maintenance of the lawn mower.”

Making a Federal Case Out of an Auto Accident

April 27, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Jurisdiction is often a tricky issue to understand in personal injury cases. Most personal injury lawsuits, such as those arising from motor vehicle accidents, are heard in state courts. But a case may be tried in federal court if there is “complete diversity” among the parties. This means, for example, if you live in Georgia and get into an accident there, you can sue the other driver in federal court if he lives in Florida. And if you are suing multiple parties—say the other driver and her employer—then neither of those parties can be residents of Georgia.

Lyons v. O’Quinn

Here is a recent case addressing such a scenario. In October 2009, a woman was driving her vehicle the wrong way on Interstate 20. She hit a tractor trailer and died from her injuries. The tractor trailer driver also suffered serious injuries.

Appeals Court Upholds $4 Million Verdict to Asbestos Victim

April 20, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Malignant mesothelioma is a deadly form of cancer usually caused by exposure to asbestos. Prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to a mesothelioma diagnosis decades after the fact. Because asbestos was commonly used in the construction industry until the 1970s, over a million people are still at risk for mesothelioma. Since the 1980s, litigation against asbestos manufacturers has skyrocketed.

Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently weighed in on one such asbestos case. A divided seven-judge panel upheld an award of more than $4 million to a retired sheet metal worker and his wife.

Victim Cannot Sue Because He Saw Hazard Two Weeks Before Accident

April 14, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The Georgia Court of Appeals has made it more difficult for persons injured on other people’s property to bring a premises liability claim. In a March 30 decision, a divided appeals court upheld a trial judge’s decision to grant summary judgment in the case of a man injured while working on someone else’s land. The dissenting judges accused the majority of usurping the traditional fact-finding role of the jury in such cases.

Seago v. Estate of Earle

The plaintiff in this case was hired to install a fence. To complete the work, the plaintiff routinely had to drive to a tool shed at the back of the neighboring property. On his first day on the job, the plaintiff noticed there was a chain up between two trees, restricting access to the client’s property. Although the plaintiff noticed the chain was down during subsequent trips to and from the shed, about two weeks into the job, he was traveling in his four-wheeler through the area when he collided with the chain, which was now up again. The collision caused the plaintiff serious injuries.

Appeals Court Says Insurer May Be Liable for Teenager Injured in ATV Accident

April 7, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If someone is injured on your property and sues, you naturally expect your insurance company will cover any damages. But insurance policies are complex contracts often containing multiple exclusions, which could leave you on the hook for a large award. That is why it is important to understand every term used in an insurance policy, as any ambiguity may lead to litigation between you and the insurer over just what the policy covers. A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrates this problem in greater detail.

Partin v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

The victim in this case was a 14-year-old girl visiting her mother’s boyfriend’s farm in Georgia. The boyfriend owned an all-terrain vehicle he used in the course of his farm work. He often allowed the girl to use the vehicle with his permission. On the day in question, the girl and one of her girlfriends had asked to use the ATV, but the owner refused because he was heading out to the store and did not want the girls driving the vehicle unsupervised. The girls ignored this, and after the owner left, they found the keys and took the vehicle out. While the girlfriend was driving, she lost control of the vehicle while attempting a curve, throwing her from the ATV and severely injuring her feet.

Georgia Supreme Court Says Malpractice Plaintiff Can Substitute Experts

April 3, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

On March 27, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling that should benefit all patients who bring medical malpractice claims in the state. The high court unanimously affirmed a lower court’s decision allowing a malpractice plaintiff to amend his complaint after a trial court found it defective. The defect arose from a dispute over the plaintiff’s decision to substitute one expert witness for another.

Fisher v. Gala

The plaintiff received treatment for back pain from a group of neurosurgeons in 2010. According to the plaintiff, the neurosurgeons misdiagnosed him and performed unnecessary surgical procedures, leading to “serious complications and permanent disabilities.” In July 2012, the plaintiff sued the neurosurgeons for negligence.

Appeals Court Says Insurance Check Created Binding Settlement Agreement

March 30, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

It is common for victims in automobile accidents to reach out-of-court settlements with negligent drivers or their insurance carriers. But victims should always be mindful of Georgia law governing such settlements. If you make a “final” demand to an insurer for money, and the insurer accepts and agrees to pay the specified amount, that is enough to create an enforceable legal contract even if the insurer subsequently seeks to negotiate additional terms. That is to say, even if you believe no “final” settlement agreement exists between you and an insurer, the courts may see it differently, as a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates.

Tillman v. Mejabi

The victim in this case suffered serious injuries in a 2011 automobile accident. There was no disputing the other driver was at fault. The victim’s attorney therefore sent a demand letter to the other driver’s insurance company, seeking to recover the maximum benefit available under the driver’s policy, which was $25,000. (The plaintiff’s actual damages were significantly higher, about $70,000.) The attorney’s letter said payment of the $25,000 would constitute “full and final settlement of this matter.”

Appeals Court Says Daycare Franchise Not Responsible for Child’s Injuries

March 22, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In any personal injury lawsuit against a business—say, a slip-and-fall or similar premises liability case—the defendant may have a franchise relationship with another company. Does that mean the franchisor can be held liable for the local business’ negligence? A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision provides a useful illustration of the law in this area.

Kids R Us International, Inc. v. Cope

The plaintiff in this case is the mother of a three-year-old child. The child was enrolled at a daycare center. One day, the child suffered injuries to his face when he collided with a metal gate located in the daycare’s play area. The mother argued the daycare center was negligent in failing to supervise her child and keeping the overall premises safe.