Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Determining “Ordinary Care” in a Rear-End Collision

November 17, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

A driver must exercise “ordinary care” when driving on Georgia roads. When an accident occurs, the courts must sort out each driver’s negligence, or lack thereof, in determining liability. In the case of a rear-end collision, for instance, neither the leading nor the following vehicle is automatically presumed to be at fault.

Dogan v. Buff

This principle recently came up in a Georgia Court of Appeals decision. The case arose from back-to-back accidents that occurred in 2009 on Interstate 75. Four vehicles were involved altogether. The plaintiff was driving a van in the third lane of the five-lane highway. The defendant was driving a tractor-trailer for his employer. There was a truck in front of the plaintiff and a fourth vehicle, a BMW, in the lane to the plaintiff’s left.

Appeals Court Says Hero Security Officer Cannot Recover Against Mall Owner

November 10, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In March 2007, a security officer working at an Atlanta mall intervened to stop a robbery at a jewelry store. The officer shielded a mall patron’s body as one of the robbers opened fire. The officer was seriously injured and died several years later. Two other people were also injured by gunfire.

Unfortunately, the security officer’s heroism that day did not help his estate in court. The officer initially filed a premises liability lawsuit, accusing the mall’s owners of negligence in managing the property. A trial court granted these defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and in opinion issued on November 3rd of this year, a three-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed.

Swope v. Greenbriar Mall Limited Partnership

Appeals Court Says Defense Attorney’s Closing Arguments Did Not Influence Jury

November 3, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

An attorney’s opening and closing arguments during trial should not be confused for evidence. The attorney may attempt to persuade the jury on how to best interpret the evidence introduced at trial. But a jury is not supposed to substitute rhetoric for evidence.

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the content of an attorney’s closing statements could justify overturning the jury’s verdict. The underlying case was a personal injury lawsuit where the jury had to determine the relative fault of two drivers. The jury ruled for the defendant, prompting the plaintiff to argue defense counsel’s closing arguments improperly affected the decision.

Young v. Griffin

Store Owner Not Liable for Hazard Created by Child Running in the Aisles

October 27, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

What is the liability of a store owner for a potential tort committed by members of the public? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question. The case involved a woman who claimed she was injured as the result of a collision with an unsupervised child.

Ingles Markets, Inc. v. Carroll

According to the plaintiff, she visited a grocery store in Villa Roca, Georgia, one afternoon in February 2012. As she walked down a store aisle, the plaintiff said a boy—about 11- or 12-years old—ran down the aisle, knocked into her, and caused her to fall. The plaintiff then filed a personal injury lawsuit against the child’s parents and the store.

Appeals Court Says Driver May Be Liable for Leaving Tractor on the Side of the Road

October 24, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of a defendant’s potential liability in a traffic accident where an “intervening act” of a third party may have also contributed to the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. Reversing a trial judge’s decision, the appeals court held a defendant who causes a traffic obstruction may still be considered negligent even if other parties may also be at fault.

Granger v. MST Transportation, LLC

This case began with a tractor that ran out of gas in DeKalb County. The driver stopped his tractor in the right-hand lane of a three-lane road. The driver then flashed his lights and deployed reflective warning triangles before leaving the vehicle and walking to a nearby gas station. The driver ended up making three trips to the gas station, as he could only carry five gallons of gasoline in his cannister, and the tractor failed to start after the first two refueling attempts.

Georgia Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against State College Over a Technicality

October 20, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The Georgia Supreme Court recently dismissed a personal injury lawsuit brought by a woman who fell into a pothole in a parking lot. The woman sued the property owner for maintaining unsafe conditions in the parking lot. In this case, the property owner was Dalton State College, part of the University System of Georgia. As the named defendant, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia is immune from civil lawsuits unless certain conditions specified by Georgia law are met. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court found the plaintiff failed to meet one of those technical conditions.

Board of Regents v. Myers

There was no question the woman suffered serious injuries. After falling in the pothole at Dalton State’s parking lot, she required emergency treatment, extended orthopedic care, and several months of physical therapy. While still receiving treatment, the woman notified the Board of Regents of her intention to sue. Georgia law requires such notice be given in order to effect a waiver of the Board’s sovereign immunity.

Georgia Court Reinstates Auto Accident Lawsuit Despite Plaintiffs’ Missing Filing Deadline

October 10, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

It is always important in a personal injury case to present evidence in a timely manner. When one party files a motion or other pleading, the other party must file a response within a stated time limit. In particular, a plaintiff’s failure to meet any deadline may lead to dismissal of his or her lawsuit.

Hall v. Massally

Missing a deadline does not always mean the case is lost. Here is a recent example from the Georgia Court of Appeals. This case arose from a two-car accident. The driver and passengers of one vehicle sued the drive of the other vehicle. In a pretrial deposition, the driver of the plaintiffs’ vehicle testified he turned into what he believed to be an open right-hand lane. But as his car moved into the lane, there was a collision with the defendant’s vehicle. The plaintiff said the two vehicles interlocked and the defendant’s vehicle dragged his car about 20 to 30 feet across a median. After the two vehicles separated, he testified the defendant’s car continued to move “at a high rate of speed” for at least another 75 feet. The plaintiff concluded, based on his observations, that the defendant was driving well over the legal speed limit, “about ninety” miles per hour.

Georgia Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Personal Injury Case Where Defendant Admitted Liability

October 4, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Personal injury litigation is often complicated, but there are some simple rules that everyone should understand. For example, when a lawsuit enters pre-trial discovery, each party may serve written requests for admission on the opposing party or parties. Oftentimes, requests for admission simply help establish basic facts about a case—e.g., “The defendant was driving a red Honda Accord.” The other party can file a written response admitting or denying each request. But if a party declines to file a response within a specified time period, either 30 or 45 days under Georgia law, then the statement is deemed admitted by the non-responsive party.

Vis v. Harris

Here is a recent case where requests for admission played a critical role. This is a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff said she was injured when she tripped on a defective piece of carpet at an Atlanta hotel. She named a hotel employee, the hotel’s owner, and its management company as defendants.

Woman Ordered to Repay Employer $130,000 for Post-Accident Medical Care

September 27, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

While it always important for the victim of a car accident to receive compensation for medical care and other injuries, it is equally imperative to obtain such compensation in a legal and equitable manner. A car accident is not an excuse to commit fraud. The Atlanta-based U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed a case on this point.

AirTran Airways, Inc. v. Elem

This case began with a 2007 car accident. The victim sustained injuries and received medical care, which her employer initially paid for under its self-funded employee benefit plan. In accepting her employer’s medical benefits—totaling more than $130,000—she agreed to repay the company out of any proceeds she might subsequently receive from legal action against the driver of the second vehicle involved in the accident. In plain terms, the employer held a priority claim over any future legal settlement.

Atlanta Appeals Court Finds Automaker Not Responsible for Fatal Accident

September 19, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

On September 12, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta declined to revive a personal injury lawsuit brought by a woman whose daughter died in an automobile accident. The plaintiff was administrator of her daughter’s estate, and she brought a lawsuit against the manufacturer of her daughter’s car. Both a Georgia trial judge and the Court of Appeals said the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims.

Hughes v. Kia Motors Corporation

Although this case was contested in Georgia courts, the actual accident occurred in Tennessee. In May 2005, the victim drove her Kia Optima automobile out of a restaurant parking lot in Chattanooga. While executing a turn, a Mack truck struck her car. The impact caused the Kia to collide with two parked cars, a tree, and several other objects, before coming to a stop near a private residence. Emergency personnel recovered the victim from the vehicle and transported her to a local hospital. She was initially breathing and responsive following the accident, but died of a traumatic brain injury the next day.