Articles Tagged with Georgia slip and fall attorney

Published on:

In any kind of personal injury case, it is important to be as precise as possible in your recollection of events. Obviously, nobody has a perfect memory, and you may be called to testify about an accident months or years later. But the words you use are taken seriously and literally by the court. You cannot expect a judge or jury to “know what you meant,” especially when your testimony undercuts a key argument in your case.

Hartman v. Clark

Consider a recent slip-and-fall case from here in Georgia. The plaintiff was patronizing a restaurant owned by the defendant. In a deposition, the plaintiff said she entered the restaurant’s bathroom, and after about 5 or 10 minutes she exited one of the stalls and “fell backwards,” causing injuries to her back and ankle.

Published on:

One of the most common types of personal injury claims against the owner of a business or other premises is the “slip and fall.” Essentially, there is a hazardous condition on a given property that causes a visitor to slip, fall, and suffer some form of serious injury. Under Georgia law, the premises owner may be liable if he or she knew—or should have known—about such an “unreasonably dangerous” condition and failed to take appropriate steps to remedy it.

Alsip v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP

Proving whether an “unreasonably dangerous” condition exists often requires a careful examination of the facts surrounding a particular accident. A Georgia judge will not simply take a plaintiff at his or her word that there was a hazardous condition. To the contrary, it is often necessary for a plaintiff to employ one or more technical experts who can explain to the court why the premises owner failed to act in an appropriate manner.

Published on:

If you are injured on someone else’s property, the owner may be liable for negligence. This is known in Georgia as “premises liability.” A common type of premises liability occurs when a customer slips and falls in a store due to a hazardous condition. If the store had “superior knowledge” of the hazard and the customer exercised “ordinary care” for his or her own safety, then a jury may find the store liable under premises liability.

Stephens v. Kmart Corporation

Premises liability cases tend to be highly fact-specific. Here is a recent example from here in Georgia. In this case, the plaintiff was shopping with her husband at a store in Tifton, Georgia. She was browsing through a series of clothing racks set up on the sidewalk in front of the store’s entrance. While attempting to move between the racks, the plaintiff’s “foot stepped off the curb, causing her to fall on the asphalt.” She sustained a serious injury to her back as a result.

Published on:

Personal injury litigation is often complicated, but there are some simple rules that everyone should understand. For example, when a lawsuit enters pre-trial discovery, each party may serve written requests for admission on the opposing party or parties. Oftentimes, requests for admission simply help establish basic facts about a case—e.g., “The defendant was driving a red Honda Accord.” The other party can file a written response admitting or denying each request. But if a party declines to file a response within a specified time period, either 30 or 45 days under Georgia law, then the statement is deemed admitted by the non-responsive party.

Vis v. Harris

Here is a recent case where requests for admission played a critical role. This is a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff said she was injured when she tripped on a defective piece of carpet at an Atlanta hotel. She named a hotel employee, the hotel’s owner, and its management company as defendants.

Published on:

A business owner has a duty under Georgia law to exercise “ordinary care” in maintaining a safe premises for customers. This does not mean a business owner is liable for any and all safety hazards on the premises. Rather, it means an owner who has “superior knowledge” of a hazard and fails to act may be held responsible if that hazard injures a customer.

In cases where the owner and customer have equal knowledge of a hazard—or are presumed by law to have equal knowledge—the owner is not liable. This question often comes up in “slip-and-fall” cases when owners and customers disagree as to whether the owner had superior or equal knowledge. A recent decision by a federal appeals court illustrates how judges deal with these questions.

Womack-Sang v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.