Georgia personal injury attorney

How Georgia Law Affects the Time to Bring a Product Liability Claim

May 5, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

There is always some kind of deadline when it comes to a personal injury claim. For example, in product liability cases–i.e., a lawsuit against a manufacturer who produces a dangerous or defective item that injures someone–Georgia imposes a 10-year “statute of repose.” A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitation. Both set a cut-off date for a plaintiff to bring his or her claim before the court.

Gaddy v. Terex Corporation

The 10-year statute of repose begins with the “first sale for use or consumption of the personal property” that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. So, let’s say you bought a car in 2008. You are later injured in an auto accident due to a defect in the car’s design. This means the statute of repose will expire in 2018.

Georgia Sword Retailer Accused of Negligence by Parents of Seriously Injured Teenager

April 30, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Dangerous and defective products injure thousands of Americans every year. Children and teenagers are especially vulnerable to poorly designed or manufactured products. Every parent’s worst nightmare is finding his or her child seriously and permanently injured due to a manufacturer’s reckless or negligent acts.

Ballinger v. Top Swords LLC

Last November there were news reports about a Kentucky teenager injured in a “freak accident” at his home. These early reports only said that the victim, a high school sophomore, “was injured when a piece of metal entered [his] forehead, causing trauma.” In fact, the trauma was so severe that the victim was in a coma for six weeks.

What Happens When a Defendant in a Personal Injury Case Fails to Appear in Court?

April 28, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Personal injury litigation is often a lengthy process, involving months or even years of pretrial discovery, followed by a trial and possibly several rounds of appeals. What happens when the defendant simply fails to respond to the plaintiff’s lawsuit? Does the plaintiff automatically win?

Anderson v. Family Dollar Stores of Georgia, LLC

In legal terms, a defendant who fails to answer a properly served complaint “defaults.” This does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff is entitled to damages. The default only means the judge must take the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true. The judge must then determine if those allegations are properly pled–i.e., that they actually state a legal basis for granting relief.

Atlanta Mall Absolved of Responsibility for Patron’s Murder

April 6, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Negligent security cases are often the most difficult types of personal injury cases for victims to prove. Negligent security falls under the broader category of “premises liability,” i.e. a property owner’s legal duty to keep that property in reasonably safe condition for customers and other invitees. While premises liability does not ordinarily extend to criminal acts committed by third parties, a property owner may be responsible for failing to provide adequate security, including proper lighting, locks, or guards.

Fair v. CV Underground, LLC

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed a negligent security claim against a well-known Atlanta shopping center. The plaintiffs were the parents of a man shot and killed on the defendant’s premises. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed the parents failed to present a case that could survive summary judgment.

How “Charitable Immunity” Can Defeat Some Georgia Personal Injury Claims

March 5, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are injured due to a hospital’s negligence, you would assume that you have the right to sue for damages. If the hospital is a charitable institution, however, it may not be that simple. For nearly a century, Georgia courts have recognized a special “charitable immunity” that protects such hospitals from personal injury lawsuits.

Lewis v. Grady Memorial Hospital Corporation, Inc.

The charitable immunity doctrine has a long and sordid history. It first crept up in a case decided in the 1830s by the House of Lords, which used to be the United Kingdom’s highest court. Although the Lords later repudiated their decision, American courts in the late 19th century picked up on the idea of charitable immunity and ran with it.

How Does a Georgia Court Calculate Economic Damages?

February 28, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you have ever read a news article about a large personal injury award, you may wonder how the jury (or judge) came up with that figure. While calculating damages is not an exact science, it is also not mere guesswork. The plaintiff in a personal injury case must present evidence, such as bills or expert testimony, to establish the size and scope of his or her losses attributable to the defendant’s conduct.

What are Economic Damages?

Economic damages refer to quantifiable financial losses suffered by the plaintiff. For example, if you are in a car accident, your economic damages may include the following:

Company Insurer Liable for Drunk Driving Employee’s Accident

February 22, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If a reckless driver injures someone in a car accident, the driver may not be the only person liable for damages. If the driver was operating a vehicle owned by his or her employer, the employer may be vicariously liable for the victim’s injuries. If the employer had the vehicle insured, the insurance company may bear the ultimate financial responsibility.

Great American Alliance Insurance Co. v. Anderson

Of course, insurance companies often will not pay out without a fight. With respect to automobile insurance, policies often exclude coverage for employer-owned vehicles that are not used with the employer’s permission. What precisely constitutes “permission” can be difficult to determine.

Georgia Court Rejects Pet Sitter’s Lawsuit Over Rooster Attack

February 21, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Dog bites and animal attacks are scary experiences that can result in significant physical and mental injuries. Owners who fail to take responsibility for dangerous animals may be held liable in court. But victims may have difficulty recovering damages if they voluntarily assumed risk or had “equal knowledge” of the danger posed by a particular animal.

Gilreath v. Smith

Recently the Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit brought by a woman injured in a rooster attack. The court upheld a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the rooster’s owner. The critical issue was the level of prior warning the victim received.

How Bankruptcy Affects Georgia Personal Injury Claims

January 31, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Dealing with personal and health care issues following a car accident is stressful enough. If your financial situation has also deteriorated to the point that you need to file for bankruptcy, you should understand the impact that might have on any personal injury claim arising from your accident. If you are not careful, the bankruptcy may let a negligent defendant escape responsibility for your injuries.

Make Sure to List All Potential Lawsuits

When you file for bankruptcy you must provide the court with a list of all of your known assets. This includes any pending or potential personal injury claims. A claim is considered part of your bankruptcy estate if the cause of action arose prior to filing. In other words, if you are injured in a car accident on January 10 and file for bankruptcy on January 20, any personal injury claim you might have must be listed on your Chapter 7 petition, even if you do not file a personal injury claim until January 30.

Is an Employer Liable for Damage Caused by an Employee’s Smoking?

January 20, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

One of the critical rules in personal injury law is the doctrine of respondeat superior. Basically, this means an employer is vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee in the “course or scope” of his or her employment. For example, if a delivery van runs a red light and hits another car, the owner of the delivery van is liable under respondeat superior for the driver’s negligence.

Acadia Insurance Co. v. United States of America

There are many cases in which the application of this rule is not obvious. Many personal injury lawsuits against employers turn on the question of whether the employee was really acting within the scope of employment when the plaintiff suffered his or her injury. A recent decision by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta considered the unusual question of whether a “smoke break” occurs in the course of employment.