Articles Posted in Negligence

Published on:

By

Victims in vehicle accidents often bring their claims for damages in Georgia courts. One type that occurs fairly often on highways in and around the Atlanta area is a “rear-end” collision. Courts have found that in rear-end accident cases, liability on the part of any driver involved in the collision depends on a factual determination of issues such as diligence, negligence, and proximate cause. Established case law in this jurisdiction requires that a jury – not a judge – have an opportunity to resolve and determine these issues. Since there are many important legal factors to consider and address in any vehicle accident case, it is important to consult an experienced injury attorney who is fully aware of the local laws affecting your case.

In a recent case, Dogan v. Buff et al. (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiff was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer driven by the defendant. According to the evidence, the plaintiff was driving a van in the center lane of I-75, a five-lane highway. The defendant was driving a tractor-trailer (owned by his employer) behind the plaintiff. The defendant’s employer’s trucking manual dictated that drivers must keep at least one truck length between the driver’s truck and any vehicle in front of it for every 10 miles per hour of speed.

A collision of two other cars occurred directly in front of the plaintiff in the center lane. The plaintiff and the defendant both merged into the next lane to avoid the crash. The plaintiff stopped his van due to traffic. The defendant tried to brake in time to avoid hitting the plaintiff but rear-ended him. While both vehicles sustained damages, the plaintiff was physically injured and brought to the hospital. At the time of the collision, the defendant was only three car-lengths behind the plaintiff.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

Accidents involving vehicles such as motorcycles, cars, and trucks occur with great frequency on Atlanta roadways. Unfortunately, vehicle accidents have the potential to cause serious injuries and even death to the people involved. In many cases, injured victims may be entitled to bring a lawsuit to recover compensation for any pain and suffering sustained. One of the fundamental issues to plead and prove in a personal injury case is negligence. Once a case makes it to trial, there are many legal steps to follow in order to successfully “try” the case. If you have been in a car or other vehicle accident, you may be entitled to recover for your losses. The best course of action is to contact an experienced injury attorney who will know the most effective approach and strategy under the circumstances of your case.

In a recent case, Young v. Griffin (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiff was riding a motorcycle when he crashed into the defendant, who was driving a truck. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for his personal injuries. At trial, the plaintiff testified that he had been riding his motorcycle as he approached a railroad crossing. As he reached the tracks, the lights began flashing, and he crossed the tracks and crashed into the defendant’s truck on the opposite side of the tracks. The defendant testified that as he was heading toward the railroad tracks he saw the lights begin to flash and decided to make a U-turn to avoid waiting for the train to pass. Once he almost completed his turn, almost completely blocking the lane, he felt the impact of the plaintiff’s motorcycle crashing into his truck.

An eyewitness who was behind the truck at the railroad crossing testified that the crossing gate and flashing lights started before the defendant initiated his U-turn. Neither the defendant nor the witness saw the plaintiff crossing the tracks before the defendant started to make the turn. A police officer investigated the accident, saw skid marks left by the motorcycle, and testified that both the defendant and the witness said the plaintiff crossed the tracks as the “arm” was descending. He also determined that both parties were at fault.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

A victim injured in a car accident must adequately plead and prove several elements in order to recover damages for any resulting pain and suffering. In most cases, each driver’s automobile insurance carrier will be involved in the court action to some extent. Under certain circumstances, a driver’s insurance carrier could attempt to legally deny coverage, thereby rendering the driver “uninsured.” When this happens, the injured party could potentially seek “uninsured motorist” (“UM”) benefits from his or her own policy. Claims arising under a UM policy are complicated and require strict awareness and attention to detail. If you have been injured in a car accident, it is important to consult with an experienced Atlanta injury attorney, who is fully familiar with the most effective way to recover damages for your injuries under the local laws.

Under Georgia law, an insured motor vehicle could effectively become uninsured, when a driver’s liability carrier denies coverage, as long as that denial is legal. In a recent case, Castellanos v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiff was injured in a car accident due to the negligence of another driver, Jose Santiago. The plaintiff’s car was insured by Travelers, and he was also a named insured under a UM policy. The plaintiff sued Santiago for his injures. Santiago’s insurance carrier, United Automobile Insurance Company (“United”), defended the case.

The plaintiff also served his UM carrier, Travelers. The case proceeded to trial, but Santiago did not attend, and a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sought to recover payment of the judgment from United as Santiago’s liability carrier. United denied coverage, based on Santiago’s lack of cooperation in the defense of the lawsuit and the failure to attend the trial. The plaintiff then sought payment from Travelers under the UM policy. Once Travelers failed to pay UM benefits, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging, among other things, that Travelers’ refusal to pay UM benefits was made in bad faith.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

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?

Continue reading

Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

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:

By

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:

By

Accidents involving cars and trucks often cause serious damages and devastating injuries. In some cases, a victim may suffer for quite a while after the collision. Tragically, some victims are killed in these accidents. No matter what an accident victim has experienced or endured, it is important to know that at the very least, he or she may be entitled to compensation for any suffering and losses. There are many avenues of relief, and the simplest way to discover what you may be entitled to is to contact an experienced injury attorney who is fully aware of the laws affecting cases brought in and around the Atlanta area.

A recent case, Oliver et al., v. McDade et al. (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), illustrates the complicated nature of seeking relief after sustaining injuries in a truck accident, under specific Georgia state laws. Here, John McDade brought a negligence claim against defendant Jerome Oliver and the owner of the tractor-trailer he was driving at the time of the accident. According to the evidence at trial, McDade was a passenger in his own truck, which was being driven by his good friend, Matthew Wood. Once they entered the on ramp of I-16 in Dublin, Georgia, Wood pulled over to the side of the road to secure part of the trailer, exited the truck, and walked back toward the trailer.

Oliver swerved the tractor-trailer he was driving onto the shoulder of I-16, striking the trailer and McDade’s truck. Tragically, Wood was crushed between the trailer and the truck and killed instantly. After the accident, McDade saw the horrific injuries suffered by his deceased friend. McDade brought this action against Oliver, the owner of the tractor-trailer, and his liability insurance carrier, seeking relief for neck, back, and knee injuries, as well as insomnia, headaches, flashbacks, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. The defendants sought partial summary judgment on McDade’s claims based on emotional distress stemming from having viewed the injuries to his friend. At first, the trial court granted the relief, noting that under Georgia law, bystanders may not recover for emotional distress as a result of witnessing another person’s 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