Articles Tagged with Georgia personal injury attorney

On November 19, 2016, a dock attached to a ferry terminal in Savannah collapsed, sending more than 60 people into the water, according to news reports at the time. A number of these people sustained serious injuries, and a Savannah firefighter died after suffering a dissecting aneurysm while participating in rescue activities.

Chatham Area Transit v. Brantley

As you might expect, there was a substantial legal fallout to the deck collapse. Several victims filed personal injury lawsuits against both the City of Savannah and Chatham Area Transit (CAT), which owned the dock. In early 2018, the City moved to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing it was protected by both sovereign immunity and Georgia’s Recreational Property Act (RPA). CAT subsequently argued it was also protected from suit under the RPA.

In most cases, damages arising from a car accident are covered by the negligent driver’s auto insurance policy. But what if the accident occurred while the car was still in the owner’s driveway? Would homeowner’s insurance actually cover such damages?

Wilkinson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed these questions in Wilkinson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. This case began when a man named Buchanan purchased a used Ford F350 truck. One of Buchanan’s co-workers, a man named Wilkinson, asked to take a look at the truck. Wilkinson and his wife subsequently went to Buchanan’s house.

Following a serious auto accident, many victims are surprised to learn their medical providers may place a lien against any potential personal injury lawsuit they might file in connection with their injuries. Such “hospital liens” are permitted under Georgia law. There are limits to how far hospitals can go with such liens, as illustrated by a recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Clouthier v. Medical Center of Georgia, Inc.

In Clouthier v. Medical Center of Georgia, Inc., the plaintiff sued the hospital that treated him following an accident for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was “injured in a tractor-trailer collision in August 2016.” He was taken by ambulance from the accident scene to the defendant’s hospital.

When you file a personal injury lawsuit against a negligent driving following an auto accident, in most cases this means you are really seeking compensation from the driver’s insurance company. Unfortunately, insurance companies are quite adept at asserting their own legal rights. This includes taking legal action to void a policy if they believe the policy holder–i.e., the negligent driver–did not strict comply with its terms.

American Family Insurance Company v. Almassud

A recent case before a federal judge in Atlanta, American Family Insurance Company v. Almassud, offers a cautionary example. This case involves a 2012 accident in Cumming, Georgia. The defendant was driving his Jeep. According to court records, the Jeep “veered into oncoming traffic and struck a vehicle driven” driven by a woman who sustained serious injuries.

When it comes to personal injury lawsuits, many plaintiffs do not only need to contend with the negligent defendant. They also need to deal with the negligent defendant’s insurance company. Even where the insurer has a contractual duty to indemnify and defend a policyholder, you can rest assured that the company will make every legal effort to avoid providing coverage.

ACCC Insurance Company v. Walker

Take this ongoing lawsuit, ACCC Insurance Company of Georgia v. Walker. This case involves a 2015 auto accident. The defendant was one of the parties involved in the accident. He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against two men, who were insured by the plaintiff, ACCC Insurance.

Pressure cookers were first developed in the 17th century. They create an airtight environment where steam pressure raises the boiling point of water, allowing food to cook much faster than normal. Of course, the buildup of pressure can lead to an explosion if the cooker itself is somehow defective.

Williams v. Tristar Products, Inc.

In an ongoing federal lawsuit, Williams v. Tristar Products, Inc., a Georgia woman alleges that a defective pressure cooker exploded in her home, causing her severe second-degree burns. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was using a PC-WAL1/TRI-6 pressure cooker, which had been a Christmas gift from her mother. The plaintiff said she had used the pressure cooker on three previous occasions without incident, and that she always followed the manufacturer’s directions.

When a car accident occurs, there may be more than one party who is liable for the victim’s injuries. For example, if the negligent driver was acting on behalf of an employer, the latter can be sued under a number of legal theories. Depending on the specific facts of the case–as well as the defendant employer’s response to the lawsuit–some of these theories may be unavailable to the victim.

Terry v. Old Hat Chimney, LLC

Take this recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Terry v. Old Hat Chimney, LLC. This case began with a rear-end auto accident that took place in July 2016. The plaintiff claims the other driver, one of the defendants, was liable for his injuries arising from said accident.

Personal injury lawsuits against the State of Georgia or any state agency must strictly comply with the terms of the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The GTCA is a state law that waives Georgia’s normal “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits. Before anyone can file a claim under the GTCA, for instance, the claimant must provide advance notice to the state. This notice must be delivered within one year of the claimant’s injury and needs to include a number of specific items, such as the place where the injury occurred, the “nature of the loss suffered,” and the amount claimed for said injury or loss.

The reasoning behind the notice requirement is to give the state an opportunity to conduct its own investigation into the claimant’s allegations and, where possible, the ability to settle the claim without the need for litigation. This is why it is critical for claimants to provide as much information as required by law.

Bailey v. Georgia World Congress Center

Georgia property owners are required to exercise “ordinary care” in keeping their invited guests and members of the public safe. This does not mean the owner must absolutely guarantee a person’s safety. For example, under most circumstances the owner is not liable for a criminal act committed by a third party on its property. This is considered an “intervening” act that absolves the owner of any liability. However, there is an exception to this general rule when there is evidence that the criminal act itself was “reasonably foreseeable” by the owner.

Rautenberg v. Pope

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Rautenberg v. Pope, offers a useful explanation of when a crime may be considered “foreseeable.” The plaintiff in this case is a semi-truck driver. He rented a parking space for his truck from the defendant. One day, the plaintiff parked his truck in his space and retired to his sleeping cab. Sometime later, the plaintiff awoke to find “an individual at the window with a tool–a long pry bar or screwdriver.” The man quickly left. The plaintiff then exited his cab and found himself on the step of another truck that was parked beside his vehicle. The other man was driving this truck. He started to drive away–with the plaintiff “hanging on the side mirror.” Eventually, the plaintiff fell off the other truck, which proceeded to run him over twice.

When a person is seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, the responsible insurance company may face conflicting obligations under Georgia law. On the one hand, the insurer must settle a valid claim in good faith. For example, if an insurer knows its policyholder is responsible for causing an accident, a refusal to settle with the victim can make the insurer liable for any excess personal injury award against the negligent driver.

On the other hand, an insurer may also be responsible to any medical provider that files a lien after providing services to the accident victim. That is to say, if the insurer simply cuts a check to the victim without first checking to see if there are any hospital liens, the hospital could turn around and sue the insurer for the amount owed (plus additional damages).

Kemper v. Equity Insurance Company