Auto Accidents

Published on: October 27, 2014

Georgia Legislature Studies “Autonomous Vehicle Technology” – The Driverless Car

According to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (“AJC”), Georgia lawmakers have created a House Study Committee on Autonomous Vehicle Technology. The five-member committee is studying the issues surrounding autonomous vehicles and will publish a report of its findings and recommendations by December 31, 2014. Apparently, legislators in other states are also considering the same technology. But the advent of this new technology brings with it many unanswered questions and concerns. One of the most significant issues concerns liability for any car accidents involving an autonomous vehicle. An experienced injury attorney who handles car accident cases would be in a good position to assess the state of the law and how it will apply to any type of auto accident claim.

Three of the people who presented information at the first hearing of the Georgia House Study Committee wrote articles on topics related to the future driverless car. One of the authors suggests that there are many benefits to the new technology. Commutes will be more productive, there will be less congestion and improved air quality, and certain restricted drivers (such as the elderly and medically or physically disabled) will have new transportation choices. All of these benefits are said to have the potential to create economic benefits as well. This same author points out, however, that one of the most important issues concerns “liability” – namely, that in the event of a crash, does the inattentive driver retain liability, or is the manufacturer of the technology liable?

Published on: October 20, 2014

Georgia Court Reviews Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ Personal Injury Claims Against County

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

A fundamental aspect of any car accident claim is the need to file the action in a timely manner. If a plaintiff fails to comply with the applicable “statute of limitations” for filing the action, a court could very well dismiss the complaint. The key word here is “applicable,” since the time period may not be the same for every type of case. The law can become quite complicated and impose different requirements depending on the facts and circumstances of the matter. If you have been injured in a car accident, the statute of limitations begins running from the moment of the incident. For this reason, in order to sufficiently protect your rights at the outset, you are encouraged to contact an experienced injury lawyer from the Atlanta area as soon as possible after the accident.

When an injured party seeks to file a claim against a local county, there are unique rules to follow. Under Georgia law § 36-11-1, all claims against counties must be presented within 12 months after they accrue. Unfortunately, in a recent case, Warnell et al. v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiffs filed their personal injury claims arising from a car accident 22 months after the incident occurred, and they were precluded from presenting their case. According to the record, in February 2011, the plaintiffs were driving near an intersection in Athens, Georgia when a police officer drove through a red light and collided with their vehicle. The County maintained an insurance policy on the patrol car in the amount of $1 million in automobile liability coverage.

Published on: October 6, 2014

Georgia Court Overturns Summary Judgment in Car Accident Case

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

Personal injury cases are integrally connected to the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident in question. Accordingly, plaintiffs who have been injured in a car collision or other vehicle accident must plead and prove a variety of elements in order to successfully bring a case for damages. Court are required to review the evidence, including affidavit testimony and other information, in deciding whether a plaintiff has successfully stated a cause of action for a jury to consider. Preparing the complaint and compiling the supporting evidence are complicated tasks requiring the assistance of an experienced injury attorney. In order to protect your right to a recovery, the best course of action is to contact a personal injury lawyer who is fully familiar with the laws and procedures affecting cases in and around the Atlanta area.

As we see from a recent case, Hall et al. v. Massally (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), courts have the authority to decide whether a plaintiff’s case for damages can survive a defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Here, three members of the Hall family were in an automobile accident with the defendant, Rachel Massally. Plaintiffs sued the defendant to recover for their personal injuries. As part of most injury cases, each side conducts “depositions” in order to gather information and evidence to support its position. Based on deposition testimony, Massally moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence that she (the defendant) did anything wrong to cause the collision.

The plaintiffs filed a response to the motion a week after the papers were due, since their attorney had withdrawn from the case. Plaintiffs presented an affidavit by a witness to the accident, who claimed that he saw the defendant driving about 90 M.P.H. just before the accident, witnessed the defendant’s car go over the median and skid into a parking lot, and that he saw the plaintiffs’ car go over the curb into the grass. Despite the untimeliness of the plaintiffs’ response, the trial court scheduled a hearing to determine the merits of the motion for summary judgment.

Published on: September 17, 2014

In Car Accident Case, Exclusion in Insurance Policy Fails to Comply With Georgia Law

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

People injured in car accidents are often eligible to recover damages for their suffering and losses. Depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding a case, including any negligence on behalf of other drivers involved, the plaintiff (or injured party) may seek a recovery under one or more insurance policy, including his or her own. While somewhat complicated, the Georgia Code governs many aspects of insurance liability coverage. If you have been injured in a car accident, it is important to contact an experienced, local injury attorney, someone who is fully aware of the laws and legal procedures applicable to claims brought in and around the Atlanta area.

Determining whether one is covered under a particular insurance policy may not be a simple task. The language can be somewhat tedious and confusing, depending on a person’s familiarity with such agreements. Additionally, the policy must adhere to state requirements in order to be enforceable. In a recent case, Roberson v. 21^st Century National Insurance Company (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the court of appeals reviewed the enforceability of a policy’s “Named Driver Exclusion Endorsement” with respect to a claim for uninsured motorist coverage (“UM”). Here, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident with another driver. He brought an action against that driver and the car’s owner.

At the time, plaintiff’s wife had a personal automobile insurance policy with 21^st Century National Insurance Company (“21^st Century”). That policy contained a section on UM coverage, namely that the company will pay certain damages that an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. The plaintiff served 21^st Century under the policy’s UM provision, pursuant to Section 33-7-11 of Georgia Code. The policy included a “Named Driver Exclusion Endorsement,” which identified the plaintiff as an “Excluded Driver,” thereby excluding coverage for any claims arising from an accident that involved the plaintiff as the driver. Based on this clause, 21^st Century filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to UM benefits because he was a named excluded driver. The plaintiff argued that the endorsement did not apply because he was not listed as a named excluded driver on the declaration page, and the state code and matters of public policy precluded application of the exclusion.

Published on: September 3, 2014

Georgia Court Rules in Favor of City of Atlanta in Tort Action

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

The facts and circumstances surrounding any car accident will play an integral part of a claim for damages. Knowing and understanding how those facts are relevant to a case is of supreme importance. Furthermore, a plaintiff in a personal injury action arising from a car accident must plead and prove certain fundamental items in order to successfully assert a claim under state law. If you have been injured in a car accident, you may be entitled to a compensation award for your pain and suffering. The best course of action is to contact an experienced injury attorney from the Atlanta area who can easily evaluate your case with the goal of achieving the best possible recovery under the circumstances.

In a recent tort action arising from a deadly car accident, City of Atlanta v. McCrary, et al. (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the court of appeals overturned the lower court and ruled in favor of the City of Atlanta, granting its motion for summary judgment. Here, two officers with the Atlanta Police Department’s Auto Theft Task Force were out on patrol when they saw a car with an improperly completed “drive-out” tag. They put on their sirens and lights and followed the car. That driver accelerated, and the officers sped up to chase the vehicle. The police officer who was driving testified that he quickly realized that he did not have a legal basis for conducting a high-speed chase, and he then turned off his sirens and lights and terminated the chase.

The police car continued driving and about a mile after terminating the chase, the officers came upon a two-car accident, involving the vehicle they had been chasing earlier. Two people were killed in the head-on crash. The administrators of the deceased’s estates brought an action against the City of Atlanta and the officer who was driving, alleging that both were negligent. The City and the officer moved for summary judgment. The City attempted to limit its liability to $700,000 under Section 36-92-2 of the state code. The trial court granted the officer summary judgment, finding that he was immune from liability, but refused to limit the City’s liability, ruling that there was a question of fact as to whether the City maintained a “nuisance” that endangered the public by failing to enforce its pursuit policy and failing to train and supervise officers under that policy.

Published on: August 25, 2014

Georgia Supreme Court Interprets State Motor Vehicle Limited Liability Release Provision

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

Car accident claims typically involve insurance coverage in one form or another. There are many types of policies and assorted levels of coverage. Parties injured in car accidents may be entitled to recover damages under one or more agreements, depending on the particular facts and circumstances. Significantly, Georgia law provides a great deal of guidance as far as the extent of recovery under certain policies, such as “uninsured” or “underinsured” motorist (“UM”) coverage, among other types. Since the amount a person would be entitled to recover in any given car accident case is dependent on the facts and applicable law, it is imperative that an injured person contact an experienced injury attorney from the local Atlanta area.

The Georgia Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an appeal in a case, Carter v. Progressive Mountain Insurance, to determine whether the lower court correctly applied the motor vehicle limited liability release provision of the state code in rendering its decision. In this case, on February 22, 2010, Velicia Carter (hereinafter “Carter”) was injured in a car accident with Jeova Claudino Oliviera (hereinafter “Oliviera”). Carter alleged that Oliviera was driving under the influence at the time of the accident. Oliviera’s liability insurance policy with Geico had a $30,000 per person liability limit. Carter’s insurance policy with Progressive Mountain Insurance Company (hereinafter “Progressive”) included UM coverage of $25,000 per person.

Carter brought an action against Oliviera and served Progressive as her UM carrier. She settled with Geico (Oliviera’s insurance company) for $30,000 and signed a limited liability release, which is governed by Georgia State Code Section 32-24-41.1. The release allocated just $1,000 of Geico’s payment to compensatory damages and $29,000 to punitive damages. As a result, Progressive moved for summary judgment on the UM claim. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that by imposing the condition that $29,000 of the liability coverage amount be apportioned to the payment of punitive damages, Carter did not comply with a prerequisite for recovery of UM proceeds. The appellate court affirmed, holding that by not allocating the entire payment to compensatory damages, the plaintiff failed to exhaust the limits of Oliviera’s liability policy and therefore gave up the right to make a UM claim. The court held that the Georgia statute permits an injured party to settle a claim and then recover UM benefits only to the claimant’s actual injuries or losses, not punitive damages. Continue reading

Published on: August 11, 2014

Georgia Court Addresses Wrongful Death Claims Arising From Car Accident

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

Car accidents have the potential to cause serious injuries and even fatalities to the people involved. According to the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety in Georgia, there were 1,223 traffic fatalities on state roadways in 2011. The causes of these devastating accidents may include poor weather and roadway conditions, driver negligence, some form of distracted driving, and many other factors. When a driver’s negligence, in whatever form, is the cause of another’s death, the decedent’s family may seek to hold that person responsible by bringing a court action against him or her. An experienced Atlanta injury attorney may be able to help families achieve a sense of justice by holding the responsible party accountable for the wrongful death of a loved one.

Georgia law sets forth one’s eligibility to bring a wrongful death action. Under the statute (OCGA § 51-4-1), a person may recover the “full value” of damages related to the decedent’s life. Eligible wrongful death claimants may include living spouses, adopted children, biological children, minors (legal guardian), custodial parent or relative, and the administrator/executor of estate. In a recent wrongful death case, CGL Management, LLC v. Wiley, Keiana Wiley was killed when another driver, Michael Thad Clay, crossed over the highway’s center line and collided with her head-on. Clay had been driving his employer’s pick-up truck at the time of the accident. The decedent’s spouse, Bryant Wiley, brought an action against Clay for wrongful death, and an action against his employer, CGL Management (“CGL”), under several tort grounds, such as respondeat superior and negligent hiring, retention, entrustment, and maintenance.

After the discovery phase of the proceedings, CGL moved for summary judgment, asserting that Clay was not “on the job” when the accident took place and that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claims. The trial court denied the motion. CGL appealed. The court of appeals reversed parts of the trial court’s decision. According to the facts, at the time of the accident, Clay had been demoted from a management position with CGL, but he was permitted to continue driving a company truck during his commute to and from work. Evidence also revealed several driving infractions committed by Clay in the past. Continue reading

Published on: August 4, 2014

Georgia Court Interprets Apportionment Statute in Car Accident Claim

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

Car accidents occur with some frequency on Atlanta roadways. People injured in car accidents have a variety of options when seeking to recover for injuries and damages sustained in a collision. State law governs many of these options, and it is important to understand the statutory legal requirements that apply to each case. One law in particular, OCGA § 51-12-33, also known as an “apportionment statute,” provides that a plaintiff’s damages shall be reduced according to that person’s own percentage of fault for the damages or injuries sustained. Defendants to car accident claims often raise this statute as an affirmative defense to a personal injury claim. Fortunately, an experienced injury attorney would be able to address these affirmative defenses in an effort to achieve the best possible recovery for your car accident claim.

A recent case, Zaldivar v. Prickett et al. (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), illustrates the court’s interpretation of OCGA § 51-12-33 as it applies to a defendant’s claim that a non-party plaintiff’s employer should share a percentage of fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Here, the plaintiff and the defendant crashed into each other at an intersection with a traffic light. Both drivers were injured, but only one brought a personal injury action. The plaintiff, who was driving a company car at the time of the accident, claimed that he cleared the intersection upon turning left once the light turned red. The defendant claimed that as she entered the intersection, the plaintiff turned left in front of her while the light was still yellow. The defendant argued, among other things, that the plaintiff’s employer was either partially or wholly at fault by negligently entrusting the vehicle to the plaintiff, despite receiving complaints about his driving. Due to this reasoning, the defendant claimed that under the statute, a jury should be able to consider the employer’s fault when determining the fault for the accident.

The trial court rejected that argument, pointing out that the employer did not breach a legal duty owed to the plaintiff and, further, it was not the proximate cause of his injuries. Therefore, the court concluded that the defendant would not be allowed to have the jury consider the employer’s alleged fault for the accident that caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant appealed, arguing that the statute would enable a jury to assess the percentage of fault attached to the employer based on grounds of negligent entrustment. After reviewing and interpreting the statute, the court of appeals rejected the defendant’s argument. Under the law, fault cannot be apportioned to a non-party unless he or she contributed to the plaintiff’s damages or injury. Here, the court concluded that negligent entrustment did not contribute to the plaintiff’s damages or injury. Continue reading

Published on: July 21, 2014

Georgia Court Reviews Relevance of Discovery Request in Car Accident Case

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

Discovery is an important phase in many car accident cases. It is a procedure by which parties hope to find information to support their claims for damages (or to defend their case). Under Georgia law, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. While the law provides guidance concerning the type and extent of discovery that is permissible in any one case, the statute cannot address every situation, and, often, the courts are called upon to determine whether a request is appropriate. If you have been involved in a car accident, you may be entitled to a recovery for your injuries. The best course of action is to contact an experienced injury attorney from the Atlanta area who would be able to evaluate your case with an eye toward achieving the best possible settlement under the circumstances.

From the outset, an experienced attorney would know the relevant discovery requests to make, in order to obtain the information necessary to effectively bring your claim. In a recent case, The Medical Center, Inc. v. Bowden (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the court denied the injured party’s discovery requests, finding that they were not relevant to her claim. Here, Ms. Bowden was injured when the rental car that she was riding in was involved in an accident. She was taken by ambulance to The Medical Center (“TMC”) in Columbus. Bowden received emergency medical treatment, including surgery, and was hospitalized for three days. She had no health insurance.

TMC billed Bowden $21,500 for her treatment and filed a hospital lien to recover the costs of her care. Although settlement negotiations took place among TMC, the rental car company and Bowden, she refused to settle. Bowden brought a claim against TMC, arguing (among other things) that the hospital’s charges were unreasonable and excessive because she was charged more than an insured patient. To support her claim, Bowden sought discovery pertaining to 1) TMC’s pricing agreements with insurance companies, 2) information about TMC’s revenue and, 3) the number of uninsured patients it treats. TMC objected to the discovery requests on grounds of relevance and confidentiality.

Published on: July 14, 2014

Georgia Court Reviews Timeliness of Lawsuit for Injuries Arising from Car Accident

By Stephen M. Ozcomert

A person who has been injured in a car accident may be entitled to bring an action against the negligent driver – to recover damages for any suffering and other losses. Essentially, the law serves to protect the person who has sustained injuries at the expense of another’s negligence. While most people understand these basic rights, many do not realize the intricate legal steps that must be followed in order to successfully file their case. One way to ensure that your case is properly stated and filed is to consult with an experienced injury attorney who is fully aware of the legal requirements that govern the courts in and around the Atlanta area.

In addition to making sure that your lawsuit fully states a claim for which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must file the complaint and serve the defendant(s) within a time period specified by law, also known as the statute of limitations. In some cases, the plaintiff may file the complaint within the statute of limitation, but fail to serve defendant within the requisite time. When that happens, the courts will look to the facts of each case to decide whether the service is proper.

In a recent case, Callaway v. Goodwin (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries arising from a car accident. She filed the lawsuit on August 7, 2012, just three days before the statute of limitations expired (August 10th). The local Sheriff’s office perfected service on August 22nd, quite a number of days after the statute’s expiration. Under the local statute, plaintiffs are granted a five-day grace period within which to perfect service. That did not happen in this case. Continue reading