Articles Posted in Auto Accidents

Published on:

By

Victims of motor vehicle accidents involving cars or trucks often sustain both personal injuries and property damage. Plaintiffs who have suffered injuries as the result of a car or truck accident may be entitled to compensation for their suffering and losses. It is important to identify the parties involved, since they may include people or entities that are not readily apparent, such as an insurance company or employer of the driver. If you have been injured in a car accident due to the fault of another, you are encouraged to contact an experienced Atlanta injury attorney who will work to seek the best possible recovery under the circumstances of your case.

One of the reasons that it is important to consult with an experienced, local injury attorney is that no two car accident cases are alike. No matter what type of case, an attorney with extensive experience handling such claims would be familiar with many important factors, such as: 1) the likely defendants (parties against whom the case may be brought), 2) the different arguments that can be asserted, and 3) the extent of damages to which a plaintiff might be entitled. In a recent case, Davis et al., v. Effingham County Board of Commissioners, et al., (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiffs (Theron and Dana Davis) brought an action against a variety of defendants:  a Board of Commissioners, a Sheriff, a Deputy, two private contractors, and one of their employees. The plaintiffs claimed that on May 29, 2009, Mr. Davis was driving on a county road and struck a pothole that was covered by water.

The driver claimed that he suffered injuries upon striking the pothole and that it was located on the edge of the road. In an affidavit, the County Deputy stated that on May 22, 2009, he responded to a call from a driver who reported that she drove over a pothole on the road in question. After inspecting the road, the Deputy found that the only visible potholes were on the shoulder of the roadway, out of the flow of traffic. Despite finding that the pothole was to the right of the white lines, he requested that it be repaired as soon as possible. The County defendants moved for summary judgment. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Car accident claims and insurance coverage often go hand-in-hand. Most drivers have some form of automobile insurance to provide financial coverage in the event of an accident. Those contracts, however, can be fairly complicated and the extent of recovery is often determined by the circumstances surrounding the claim. In many cases, the insurance company will attempt to limit its out-of-pocket liability for a claim by raising any number of defenses. An experienced personal injury attorney, who is fully familiar with the Georgia insurance code as it applies to cases occurring in and around the Atlanta area, would be able to competently and efficiently handle such claims to ensure that an injured plaintiff achieves a maximum recovery.

In a recent case, Assaf v. Cincinnati Insurance Company (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiff Assaf appealed a summary judgment order in favor of the insurance company. Here, the driver of an uninsured vehicle struck and injured Assaf while he was walking alongside a road. Assaf brought a personal injury action against the driver and served Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) with a copy of the complaint. Cincinnati is Assaf’s uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier. Assaf amended the complaint to add a claim against Cincinnati, arguing that its refusal to provide $1,000,000 in uninsured/underinsured benefits (“UM Coverage’) amounted to a breach of contract.

Much of the case involved a dispute over whether plaintiff was entitled to excess UM Coverage under the applicable insurance policy. According to Assaf, he spoke by telephone with an employee of the insurance agency and requested an umbrella policy that included $1,000,000 in UM Coverage. The actual policy, however, did not provide the excess coverage and there was a “check mark” in a box, which indicated that Assaf (who signed the document) rejected the excess coverage. Despite this evidence, Assaf testified that he did not sign the form – or check the box – rejecting the excess coverage. Assaf claimed that the agent forged his signature. Even assuming Assaf’s claims regarding the forgery were true, Cincinnati moved for summary judgment on various grounds, such as reasonable reliance on the application in issuing coverage, among several other things. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Car accidents occur on a daily basis on Atlanta roadways. The circumstances may involve collisions with trucks, cyclists, pedestrians, and other motor vehicles. Car crashes often cause serious damage and injuries to the people involved. Victims of such accidents may be entitled to compensation for harm caused by a negligent party. It is important to keep in mind that there are many critical legal steps to follow when bringing a personal injury action. In order to maximize a recovery for your car accident claim, you are encouraged to contact a local attorney with extensive experience handling these cases. Georgia law governs many aspects of personal injury actions arising from car accidents.

The state code is expansive and intricate and often requires a fair amount of legal interpretation, based on previous case law. In a recent case, Winslett v. Guthrie (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the court reviewed whether under OCGA Section 9-11-60, the defendant could vacate or set aside a default judgment in a personal injury action arising from a vehicle collision. In February 2012, the parties were in a car accident in which Bonnie Winslett was driving a car she did not own, and Terry Guthrie was riding a bicycle. In May 2012, Guthrie brought a personal injury action against Winslett. Although Guthrie properly served the complaint, Winslett failed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the action.

In August 2012, the court entered a default judgment in the amount of $2,916,204. The trial court judgment included an order requiring Guthrie to provide Winslett with a copy of the order entering the judgment. The record revealed that Guthrie failed to provide Winslett with a copy, claiming that he was unable to locate her. To make up for this, Guthrie sent a copy of the judgment to the insurance company that issued coverage on the car Winslett was driving at the time of the accident. The insurance carrier’s attorney located Winslett in September 2012. Continue reading

Published on:

By

No two-car accident cases are alike. The facts and circumstances can vary on many different levels, including the types of injuries sustained, the number of vehicles involved, insurance coverage, whether there are other causes for the accident aside from driver negligence, and many other factors. Add to these variables any applicable laws, and it is easy to see why negligence claims arising from car accidents can become complicated fairly quickly. If you have sustained injuries in a car accident due to someone else’s negligence, you may be entitled to compensation for your suffering and losses. To pursue recovery, it is important that you contact an experienced injury attorney from the Atlanta area as soon as possible.

In a recent case, Morrow et al., v. Angkawijana, LLC et al., (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), Brandon Morrow was killed when Martin Williams, the driver of the car he was a passenger in, turned left into an intersection and collided with another vehicle. After the accident, Williams reported a blind spot when making the left turn just prior to the collision. He later mentioned that the way the road curved and shrubbery at the intersection blocked his view.

Plaintiffs Laura Morrow, the surviving spouse of the deceased Brandon Morrow, and Richard B. Russell, Jr., administrator of the estate, brought an action in 2009 alleging negligence claims against the two drivers and against two companies, Angkawijana, LLC and IMAEX, owner and lessee (respectively) of the property at the intersection where the accident occurred. They later added a third defendant, Russell Corporate Groups, Inc., the landscaping company. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendants negligently installed and maintained certain shrubbery, which they alleged blocked the view of motorists in violation of Georgia law. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Many employees drive company vehicles either to and from work, or for specific company-related tasks. The question arises then, if an employee gets into a car accident with another driver while operating a company vehicle, is the employer liable for any resulting damages or injuries? Or, to put it another way, can the victim of the accident bring any claims for injuries against the company? The answer of course, depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the collision. If you have been the victim of a car accident due to the negligence of another person, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. To determine the extent of the value of your claim, and against whom you may bring the action, it is important that you contact an experienced injury attorney from the Atlanta area as soon as possible after the incident occurs.

In a recent case, Dougherty Equipment Company, Inc. v. Roper (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), an employee, Adam Garland, was driving a company van to work when he got into a car accident with Linda Roper’s vehicle. Roper brought an action against Dougherty, claiming that the company was “vicariously liable” for Garland’s conduct under a legal doctrine known as “respondeat superior.” Roper also alleged that Dougherty was liable for negligent entrustment and hiring of Garland. Among other things, the company moved for summary judgment for the vicarious liability claim, arguing that Garland was acting outside of the scope of his employment while he was driving to work. The company also claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support a negligent entrustment claim.

The trial court denied the company’s motion and the court of appeals granted an application for “interlocutory review.” Under Georgia law, when there is a car accident involving an employee driving an employer’s vehicle, the presumption is that the employee was acting in the course and scope of his or her employment at the time of the accident. To avoid liability, the employer would be required to rebut that presumption. Here, although Garland was driving the company van on the day the accident occurred, he had not yet started work and was only driving from his home to the company office to get his assignment. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Car accidents are often caused by the actions of a negligent driver. In these cases, injured parties may point to the motorist’s distracted driving or failure to heed traffic safety laws as the cause of the crash -and any resulting injuries. But there are accidents that are not the fault of any driver, but instead can be blamed on a defective vehicle or part. A driver who has been injured in an accident due to a defective or faulty vehicle may be entitled to compensation. In order to recover the full value of your claim, it is crucial that you contact an experienced injury attorney from the Atlanta area.

According to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, parents of a young woman who died in a 2010 crash that was caused by a faulty ignition switch in a General Motors (“GM”) car, want to rescind their settlement agreement and are now filing a new lawsuit against the company. The complaint filed in March 2013 alleged that while the decedent drove her Chevrolet Cobalt on Georgia’s Highway 9, the key moved out of the run position, causing the engine to shut off and further causing her to lose control of the vehicle and strike an oncoming car. The impact caused her vehicle to travel off the highway, which lead to injuries that caused her death. The complaint accused GM of negligence in designing, testing and manufacturing the car, and of failing to adequately warn consumers. In September of 2013, GM and the parents reached a settlement.

The parents filed a new complaint in state court in Marietta, alleging that GM fraudulently concealed critical evidence and permitted a representative from the company to lie under oath. The specific allegations suggest that a lead design engineer for the Cobalt ignition switches testified repeatedly that he was not aware of any design change to the switches, and that the company affirmed those assertions. However, according to the new complaint, GM’s recent disclosures to Congress and to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration contradict those earlier statements. The attorney for the decedent’s parents argues that the family would not have settled with GM had they known of the concealment of the evidence and the perjury committed by company representatives. GM’s refusal to rescind the settlement agreement has prompted the parents to file this new lawsuit. The company recently released a statement denying any fraudulent concealment of facts relevant and critical to this case, and further denying any improper conduct related to this matter. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Car accidents, by their very nature, are unpredictable. Drivers in and around the Atlanta area have a duty to exercise care when operating a motor vehicle. Accidents can be caused by any number of factors, including distracted driving, driver intoxication or fatigue, failure to obey traffic laws, speeding, and even inadequate signage in construction zones. One of the most important issues to determine in any car accident case is whether the other party (or defendant) owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In order to make this determination, it is important that you contact an experienced injury attorney who is fully aware of the local laws and procedures.

In a recent case, Diamond v. Department of Transportation, (Ga. Ct. App. 2014), plaintiffs were injured when their car fell into a ditch. The record shows that at the time of the accident, there was a road construction project – taking place in the area. Because of the construction zone, the road that plaintiffs were driving on – Lakeshore Drive (a county road), was rerouted. Mr. Diamond was driving the vehicle on what he believed was Lakeshore Drive, but instead, it was a grassy area where the road had been prior to the construction. Plaintiffs continued on the grassy area for 90 to 100 feet before their car plunged into a ditch.

Plaintiffs husband and wife each filed a negligence suit against several defendants, including the Department of Transportation (the “DOT”). Plaintiffs claimed (among other things) that the DOT had a duty to use generally accepted design and engineering standards and failed to satisfy this duty by closing the road, failing to construct a curb and gutter on the roadway, and failing to place adequate signs or other warning constructions on the roadway. Among other things, the DOT claimed that it owed no duty to the plaintiffs. The trial court granted the DOT’s summary judgment motion, ruling that the accident did not take place on a part of the highway system upon which the DOT owed a duty to motorists. Plaintiffs appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Georgia law governs personal injury lawsuits arising from any number of tort claims, including injuries arising from car accidents.  It is important to understand what laws apply to your particular claims and how you may properly comply with those requirements.  The significance of following the applicable local procedure cannot be overstated.  In Driscoll et al. v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for personal injuries arising from a car accident, for failure to provide the defendant with adequate notice of the claim.  This unfortunate result could have easily been avoided with the help of an experienced injury attorney who is fully familiar with the local laws and procedures applicable to cases in and around the Atlanta area.

In the Driscoll case, the plaintiff brought an action individually and as the administrator of his wife, Deborah Driscoll’s, estate.  According to the uncontested record, the decedent was killed on Interstate 285 when a wheel from an oncoming vehicle came off, crossed over the median, and struck her vehicle.  She died at the scene.  The van belonged to Georgia State University.  Almost a year after the accident, counsel for the decedent’s estate sent an “ante litem notice” (in accordance with the pertinent state statute) to the Risk Management Division of the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (the “DOAS”).  The notice included important items such as the date of the incident, location, injury and entities involved, as well as a brief description of the accident.  The notice failed, however, to provide “the amount of loss claimed.”

Some months later, plaintiff’s attorney sent a demand letter to the DOAS, and the following year, he filed a lawsuit seeking damages for injuries associated with the car accident.  The defendant claimed sovereign immunity and moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to follow the statutory requirements for the ante litem notice.  Under the state statute, a party who is injured by the State (in this case, the State’s vehicle’s tire caused the accident) may avoid the State’s defense of immunity as long as the plaintiff properly files a notice of claim.  Georgia law requires “strict” compliance with the statutory requirements, rather than “substantial” compliance.  Here, the plaintiff failed to include one element: the amount of loss claimed. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Georgia courts have been called upon to interpret any number of insurance policy claims arising from car accidents.  All of the facts and circumstances of each case are integral to the determination of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery, and if so, to what extent.  Whether the claim is asserted under the allegedly negligent party’s automobile insurance policy or homeowner’s policy, the language of those agreements can be fairly tedious and complicated.  And the proper reading and interpretation of those provisions can impact the ultimate damages award.  Anyone who has been injured in a car accident is encouraged to contact an injury attorney from the Atlanta area who is highly experienced in handling car accident claims.

In a recent case, Sauls et al. v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co., (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the court addressed whether a homeowner’s insurance policy provided coverage for wrongful death and personal injury claims arising from a car accident.  Here, plaintiffs Debbie and Eric Sauls (the “plaintiffs”) brought an action against Todd and Justin McAllister, among others, for the wrongful death and personal injuries of their daughter, Cheyenne, who died in a car accident after leaving the McAllister’s home. Plaintiffs allege that the McAllisters furnished alcoholic beverages at their home to the driver of the car involved in the accident, as well as to their daughter, both minors.

Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed a declaratory judgment action for a determination of its liability under a homeowner’s insurance policy.  Allstate argued that the policy excludes coverage for bodily injury claims arising out of the use of any motor vehicle. Both Todd McAllister and his son Justin were named insureds under the policy. But the specific language of the Family Liability Protection section and the Guest Medical Protection section excludes coverage for bodily injury “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, occupancy, renting, loaning, entrusting, loading or unloading of any motor vehicle or trailer.”  The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims for injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehicle and therefore, were excluded from coverage under the policy. Continue reading

Published on:

By

A victim of a car accident may be able to bring a variety of claims against a negligent driver.  But Georgia law – like many states – sets forth certain limitations to recovery depending on the relative responsibility of the parties involved in the accident.  For example, under a Georgia statute, which applies to actions arising in Atlanta and throughout the state, a plaintiff in a “tort” action is not entitled to receive damages if he or she is found to be 50 percent or more responsible for the injury or damages alleged.  This issue and many others relating to car accidents involving negligent driving can be difficult to understand, especially with respect to how it applies to your particular case.  If you have been injured in a car accident it is important to contact an experienced Atlanta injury attorney who understands the local laws and procedures and can help to protect your rights to a recovery.

In a recent case, Reed et al. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. et al., (Ga. Ct. App. 2014), plaintiff brought a wrongful death action on behalf of his son who died in a car crash on Interstate 285.  Plaintiff sought to recover damages for his son’s injuries and death.  According to the facts revealed at trial, at about 2:00 a.m. back in August 2008, Rimantas Labeika improperly parked a tractor-trailer in a prohibited area – the emergency lane on the right side of the highway, just past the entrance ramp. He parked there to rest after driving the maximum number of hours regulated by law.

About an hour later, Thomas Reed, II, was approaching the intersection of Interstate 285 in rainy conditions.  He had been drinking and had a blood alcohol level of .095.  As he entered the Interstate, taking the curve too fast for the weather conditions and his rate of speed, he lost control of the car. He struck the guardrail and ultimately crashed into the rear of tractor-trailer parked at the side of the road.  The impact caused the gas tank to rupture, resulting in a fire. The driver’s cause of death was blunt force trauma and thermal injuries. Continue reading

Contact Information
Decatur Office
215 N McDonough St
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (404) 370-1000
Toll Free: (888) 373-9321
Fax: (404) 378-3656

* Please send all mail correspondence to this office.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Stephen M. Ozcomert
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design