Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Georgia Appeals Court Reinstates “Tandem Driving” Lawsuit

August 6, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

On September 25, 2008, a driver heading west on Jackson Road (Georgia Highway 155) in Spalding County was struck by a white van traveling–well past the posted 55-mph speed limit–south on Johnny Cut Road. The subsequent collision killed the van operator and seriously injured the innocent driver of the other vehicle. Understandably, the victim filed a lawsuit to recover damages for his injuries.

What makes this case unusual is one of the defendants was the driver of a third vehicle. The victim identified this vehicle as running about 20-30 feet behind the van that collided with him. Subsequent evidence revealed the third vehicle had been following the van to a gas station. The victim testified the two vehicles were traveling at 65-70 miles per hour and likely ran a stop sign just prior to the accident. The driver of the third vehicle claimed he was only traveling around 40-45 miles per hour and that he stopped at the stop sign in question.

Georgia law recognizes joint liability of parties based on “tandem driving.” Put simply, if two cars are speeding together–say, in an illegal drag race–and one car causes an accident, the driver of the other car may also be held liable even if he or she was not a party to the accident. As the Georgia Court of Appeals has explained in Baxter v. Wakefield, liability exists when “there is an understanding” between the drivers “to reach a common destination and in doing so illegal speed is used and the cars are driven so closely together as to be practically in tandem.”

Georgia Appeals Court Reviews Tragic Car-Truck Accident, Finds Neither Driver Responsible

August 4, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Sometimes there’s a deadly automobile accident where neither driver is legally at fault. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently made just such a finding with regards to a June 2010 highway accident just outside of Albany. While a trial judge thought there were issues for a jury to sort out, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously agreed the undisputed facts showed neither party could be held legally responsible.

The accident involved a woman driving her car on a northbound lane. A truck in the southbound lane suddenly veered across the turning lane and struck the car. The woman driving the car suffered a broken leg and other injuries. The man driving the truck sustained a head injury and could not recount the details of the accident to a police. It was later discovered the truck driver had suffered a stroke just before the accident, and he died a few weeks later.

The automobile driver sued the truck driver’s estate for negligence. The truck driver’s executor responded by filing a negligence counterclaim against the automobile driver. The trial judge refused both parties’ motions for summary judgment but allowed them to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals.

Georgia Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit of Unarmed Man Shot by Off-Duty Police Officer

July 26, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

An off-duty police officer providing security for an apartment building shoots an unarmed man who was simply delivering some medication to a disabled relative. Is the apartment building owner liable? Maybe, according to a recent decision by a divided Georgia Court of Appeals.

The victim in this case visited his aunt’s apartment building and parked in a handicapped-designated space. This aroused the suspicion of the off-duty officer. It was the officer’s first day working private security for the building. He had been hired by another police officer, who previously monitored the building alone.

After the victim completed his delivery and exited the building, the off-duty officer confronted him. The officer later testified that the victim panicked, entered his car and ingested what the officer (falsely) claimed was cocaine. The officer tried to physically block the victim’s car and repeatedly shouted him to stop. Ultimately, the officer smashed a window in the victim’s car and fired his weapon. The officer later claimed–again, falsely–that the victim was reaching for a gun.

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Commercial Liability Policies

July 25, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The law often turns on the definition of a single word. In a recent decision, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously defined the use of the word “occurrence” with respect to certain commercial insurance policies. The underlying case arose from allegations of faulty home construction.

Curiously, the faulty construction did not take place in Georgia, but California. Sixteen homeowners in that state filed a class action against their home builder over inadequately constructed foundations. The homeowners alleged the improper construction caused “terrible physical damage” to their properties.

Georgia came into the picture because of the home builder’s relationship with an insurance company providing a commercial general liability (CGL) policy subject to that state’s law. Normally, a CGL policy pays any legal liabilities arising from “bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” in the specified coverage territory. In this case, the home builder’s CGL policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition.”

Georgia Court of Appeals Says Insurance Companies Have Burden of Proving Customers Elected Lesser Coverage

July 19, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Under Georgia law, an automobile insurance policy must provide coverage for damages sustained in an accident with an uninsured motor vehicle. The amount of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage must be at least $25,000 for injury or death to one person ($50,000 to two or more persons) or equal to the policy’s overall limit on bodily injury liability coverage. The person taking out the insurance policy, however, may “affirmatively choose” an amount of UM coverage less than this maximum liability amount.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed a disagreement between an accident victim and his insurance company over whether he “affirmatively” chose less than the maximum amount of UM coverage presumed under state law. A three-judge panel held the insurance company had the burden of proof to show the insured person elected lesser coverage. This reversed a lower court’s previous ruling granting summary judgment to the insurance company.

“Affirmative” Action Does Not Mean Failure to Act

Georgia Courts Excuse Used Car Dealers Who Deliberately Lie to Customers

July 13, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Is it okay for a used car salesman to lie to a customer about the condition of a vehicle? Yes, according to a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals. On July 9th a three-judge panel unanimously upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit against a car dealer who pulled a classic bait-and-switch. The court said it was the customer’s fault for believing the dealer’s claims.

The purchase in question took place in September 2011. The customer visited Payless Auto Deals looking for a “durable and reliable” used car. A salesman showed the customer a 2008 Honda Odyssey. The customer asked if there was anything wrong with the vehicle, that is had it been in a prior accident or suffered any damage? The dealer said the car was “clean and undamaged,” and produced a CARAFAX report to that effect.

While CARFAX reports are commonly used in assessing used car purchases, it’s important to understand that these reports are compiled by a private, for-profit company that accesses publicly available information. CARFAX reports are not sanctioned or regulated by the government (unlike, say, credit reports) and oftentimes do not reflect a vehicle’s complete accident history.

Georgia Supreme Court Rules for Insurance Company In Long-Running Gas Explosion Case

July 5, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Insurance policies, such as those insuring commercial properties, usually contain a subrogation clause. In this context, subrogation means that when the insured suffers losses as the result of a third party’s conduct, the insurance company assumes the right to sue that third party for damages. Having paid the insured person’s claim, the insurance company then seeks compensation from the party who caused the claim to be paid in the first place.

But what happens when the insured party believes it has not been fully compensated for his or her loss? Must the insurance company “make whole” the insured before pursuing its own subrogation rights? This past May, the Georgia Supreme Court addressed that question and answered “no,” at least with respect to insurance policies covering commercial properties.

Justices Decline to “Invent a Right” To Be “Made Whole”

Georgia Court Upholds Disputed Accident Settlement, Reverses Award of Attorney’s Fees

June 29, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

What constitutes a binding settlement in a personal injury matter? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question in a case arising from a 2010 motor vehicle accident. The parties disagreed as to whether their settlement talks produced an enforceable agreement.

The accident in question seriously injured one man, who incurred significant medical expenses. The driver of the other vehicle that caused the victim’s injuries had an insurance policy with a $25,000 limit. The victim offered to settle with the driver for that amount.

The victim requested a $25,000 check, together with a limited-liability release and proof of the coverage limit by a certain date. The driver’s attorney responded by seeking clarification with respect to the terms of the limited-liability release. The attorney provided sample language and invited comments from the victim and his attorney. The victim’s attorney then responded with his own draft of a release. The driver’s attorney responded with additional proposed revisions.

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Impact of 2008 Amendment to Uninsured Motorist Insurance Requirements

June 28, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Although personal injury is generally regulated by state law, federal courts often hear such cases because of what’s known as diversity jurisdiction. That is to say, when the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, the defendant may seek to transfer–or remove–the case from state to federal court. Diversity can exist even if one or both parties are a corporation or similar entity; a corporation is a “citizen” of the state where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.

When federal courts hear personal injury cases, they must still follow the established law in the state where the plaintiff filed suit. On occasion, a federal court will ask the state’s supreme court to clarify certain questions of state law. The Georgia Supreme Court did just that in a June 17 opinion arising from a personal injury lawsuit.

Does a 2008 Law Change a Policy Issued In 2001?

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds State Must Pay Attorney Fees Under “Offer of Settlement” Rule

June 21, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In 2005 the Georgia legislature adopted a controversial tort reform law that included an “offer of settlement” provision. Under this rule, either party in a tort action can make a pretrial settlement offer. If the other party rejects they offer, they can be held liable for the offering party’s attorney fees depending on the outcome of the subsequent trial. In the case of a plaintiff’s offer, the defendant is liable if the jury returns a judgment that is more than 125% of the rejected offer. Conversely, the plaintiff is liable if the jury returns an award that is less than 75% of a rejected defense offer.

A Prisoner Successfully Sues the State

While the offer of settlement rule clearly applies to personal injury lawsuits among private parties, what about torts committed by employees of the State of Georgia? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question arising from a lawsuit brought by an inmate at Walker State Prison in Rock Springs. The inmate, David Lee Couch, had volunteered to help paint the prison warden’s home. The house was under renovation, and Couch fell through a rotted part of the floor. He said he was never warned about the dangerous condition of the floor before entering the home, which was owned by the Georgia Department of Corrections.