Articles Tagged with Georgia personal injury attorney

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

Motorcycle accidents often leave the victim with devastating injuries. So, when the accident is even partially the result of a defect in the design or production of the motorcycle itself, the manufacturer may be liable for damages under Georgia law. However, a judge or jury may decide that the motorcyclist was also partially responsible and reduce the manufacturer’s liability accordingly.

Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. v. Johns

This is precisely what happened in a recent case before the Georgia Court of Appeals, Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. v. Johns. A jury determined that the manufacturer of a motorcycle was 51% responsible for an accident that injured the plaintiff. Both sides appealed the verdict for different reasons, but the appeals court declined to second-guess the jury.

When it comes to personal injury claims, you should never make assumptions. For instance, even if you believe an accident was the result of a faulty piece of equipment, you still need to prove it in court. Do not assume the judge (or jury) will just take your word for it that “it must have been broken.”

Lakeshore Contracting, LLC v. Lopez-Hernandez

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Lakeshore Contracting, LLC v. Lopez-Hernandez, offers a useful illustration. This case involves an accident that occurred at a construction site. The defendant is a general contractor. In 2016, a customer hired the defendant to remodel a retail store. The defendant hired two subcontractors to perform the actual remodeling work. One of the subcontractors then hired the plaintiff to assist him.

You probably have heard the term “wrongful death” in the context of personal injury law. Basically, this is a lawsuit that alleges a defendant’s negligence led to the death of the victim. The victim’s estate or heirs then have the legal right to seek damages from the responsible parties.

Some states also recognize a lesser-known type of claim referred to as “wrongful birth.” For example, if a doctor commits malpractice by failing to inform expectant parents of a serious genetic defect in their unborn child, the parents could bring a lawsuit arguing they would have aborted the fetus but-for the doctor’s negligence. The parents could then seek compensation to offset the additional costs of caring for their child.

Norman v. Xytex Corporation

Parents entrust their children to a number of responsible adults every day, including teachers and bus drivers. When something goes wrong and the child is injured–or even killed–while under another person’s care, the parents understandably want to hold that person responsible. Unfortunately, the law does not always help parents in this regard, particularly when the responsible person happens to be a public employee.

Odum v. Harn

A recent ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Odum v. Harn, typifies the uphill battle parents face when seeking accountability. This case involves a 2013 accident that resulted in the death of a 5-year-old child. The victim was riding on a Bryan County school bus operated by the defendant.