Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

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.

Appeals Court Rules Atlanta Police’s High-Speed Chase is Not a Public “Nuisance”

September 12, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

High-speed police chases may look exciting on the local news, but they often have deadly consequences for innocent bystanders. In many cases, police and local officials are held blameless by the courts due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals elaborated on the standards required for holding police accountable (or not accountable) in such cases.

City of Atlanta v. McCrary

In early 2008, two Atlanta police officers attempted to stop a vehicle with improper tags. The driver sped away, and the officers pursued the vehicle. There is some dispute over what happened next. The officers said they broke off pursuit after determining a continued chase would violate Atlanta Police Department regulations. The driver, in contrast, said he “never lost sight of the police” and continued to evade them. In any event, the driver eventually collided with a third vehicle, killing the passenger in his vehicle as well as the driver of the other car.

Federal Court Asks Georgia Justices to Address Scope of Uninsured Motorist Benefits

September 5, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

On September 3, a federal appeals court asked the Georgia Supreme Court to clarify whether an insurance company must pay out “uninsured motorist” (UM) benefits for an accident caused by an agent of the State of Georgia. The question arose from a federal judge’s ruling last December holding an insurer liable under such circumstances. The appeals court delayed considering the insurer’s appeal pending the Georgia Supreme Court’s clarification.

FCCI Insurance Company v. McLendon Enterprises, Inc.

This case began with a traffic accident. The plaintiffs are the driver and owner of a vehicle that collided with a school bus owned by Evans County, Georgia. After settling with Evans County for the maximum limit of its insurance policy, the plaintiffs sought uninsured motorist benefits from their own insurer, FCCI. FCCI balked, and asked a federal judge to declare it owed nothing to the plaintiffs.

Appeals Court Finds “Passenger” Was Not Really a Passenger

August 29, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

A “common carrier” is a person or company that furnishes transportation to the general public in exchange for money. Georgia law requires all common carriers, such as bus operators, to “exercise extraordinary diligence” to protect its passengers in order to avoid liability for negligence. This is a higher standard than applies in most negligence cases, where an owner need only demonstrate “ordinary care” in keeping his or her premises safe.

Recently, a divided Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of the “extraordinary diligence” standard in the case of a ticketed passenger who tripped and fell on her way to board a bus. A majority of the court found she was not actually a passenger at that point, and therefore could only pursue a claim under the “ordinary care” standard for premises liability—which, unfortunately, was not available to her because of procedural issues.

DeMott v. Old Town Trolley Tours of Savannah, Inc.

Appeals Court Says Insurer Not Liable for Atlanta Driver’s Shooting Rampage

August 22, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

While a traffic accident may occur entirely within one state, the insurance policies applicable to the vehicles and their owners may invoke the laws of two or more jurisdictions. This is why federal courts often handle personal injury lawsuits. Where there is “diversity” of jurisdiction between the parties—that is, the plaintiffs and defendants reside in different states—a federal court may hear the case.

However, state law still applies to personal injury lawsuits, even those tried before a federal judge and jury. That still may raise the question of which state law to apply in a given situation. Recently, a federal appeals court in Atlanta addressed just such a complex matter.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Moore

Federal Judge Chides Defense for Destroying Evidence in Accident Lawsuit

August 22, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In any personal injury lawsuit, it is critical the parties to the case preserve any relevant evidence. A court may sanction either side if there is destruction or “spoliation” of evidence. A recent decision by a federal judge in Macon offers an example of these sanctions in practice.

Little v. McClure

This is an ongoing personal injury lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle accident. In February 2012, a tractor trailer collided with another vehicle at the intersection of Interstate 76 and Interstate 75 in Macon. The tractor trailer driver is the defendant. The plaintiffs allege he was negligent because he was distracted by talking on his cellular phone at the point of the accident.

Federal Court Holds Medical Interest Groups Should Not Dictate Admissibility of Expert Testimony

August 15, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Expert testimony is a critical element of medical negligence cases. The United States Supreme Court has charged trial judges with serving as “gatekeepers” who must screen out “speculative, unreliable expert testimony” before it even reaches a jury. But that does not mean judges enjoy unlimited discretion to decide which experts to admit. A federal appeals court in Atlanta recently chided a district judge for improperly excluding a plaintiff’s expert witness in a Georgia negligence case. The appeals court also rejected an attempt by the medical industry to dictate its own standards of expert witness reliability to the courts.

Adams v. Laboratory Corporation of America

The plaintiff in this case suffered from cervical cancer. She received several Pap smear tests, but the laboratory that analyzed the results failed to discover the cancer before it had spread to the plaintiff’s lymph nodes. The plaintiff then sued the laboratory for negligence.

Georgia Court of Appeals Says Accident Victim May Pursue Damages Arising from Emotional Trauma

August 8, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

On July 16, a fractured Georgia Court of Appeals held a plaintiff could seek damages for emotional distress arising from a truck accident. Although Georgia law generally does not allow damages for “negligent infliction of emotional distress,” there is an exception for a “pecuniary loss” arising from physical injury. In this case, the appeals court judges disagreed over whether this pecuniary loss rule covered the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff.

Oliver v. McDade

The plaintiff and several others were returning home from a dirt race in a truck owned by the plaintiff and driven by one of his friends. The truck was towing the plaintiff’s race car. Somewhere on I-16 in Dublin, they stopped to check the trailer hitch. At that moment, a tractor trailer swerved onto the shoulder and hit the plaintiff’s truck and trailer. The plaintiff’s friend was crushed and killed immediately. The plaintiff suffered a number of physical injuries. He was subsequently diagnosed with a number of emotional injuries, including depression, insomnia, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Accident Victim’s Right to Seek “Uninsured Motorist” Compensation

August 1, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The Supreme Court of Georgia issued an important decision on July 11 that will make it easier for accident victims to pursue uninsured motorist claims against their insurance carriers. The Supreme Court, reversing a 2013 decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, said a plaintiff could allocate part of a settlement with the defendant’s insurance carrier to punitive damages while retaining the right to pursue an uninsured motorist claim for compensatory damages. Georgia law does not permit recovery of punitive damages under an uninsured motorist policy.

Carter v. Progressive Mountain Insurance

This case began with a February 2010 two-vehicle accident. One driver sued the other for negligence. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The defendant had an insurance policy limited to $30,000 in liability coverage. The plaintiff had her own uninsured motorist policy with Progressive Mountain Insurance.