Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Published on:

By

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. 21st 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 21st Century National Insurance Company (“21st 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 21st 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, 21st 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.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

A fundamental aspect of any personal injury case is the state-governed time period within which a plaintiff is eligible to bring an action for damages:  the statute of limitations. Section 9-3-33 of the Georgia Code provides that actions for injuries to the person shall be brought within two years after the right of action accrues, with some exceptions. If an injured party fails to adhere to this requirement, he or she will be foreclosed from recovering for his or her suffering and losses. For this reason alone, it is important to contact an experienced injury attorney who is fully aware of the laws affecting cases brought in and around the Atlanta area.

In a recent premises liability case, DeMott v. Old Town Trolley Tours of Savannah, Inc. (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the court granted summary judgment in favor of Old Town Trolley because the plaintiff failed to bring the action before the statute of limitations expired. Here, the plaintiff entered the Savannah Visitor Center with the intention of taking a trolley tour of the City of Savannah. She bought tickets for the tour and walked across the parking lot to an information kiosk to find out where to board the trolley. She was told to walk back to where she purchased the tickets. During the walk back across the parking lot, her husband told her to “watch the potholes.” She attempted to step around a pothole, but the asphalt gave way and she fell.

She first brought a premises liability action against the City of Savannah but later found out that Old Town Trolley owned the parking lot where she fell. Three years after the incident, DeMott amended her complaint to allege a premises liability claim against the trolley company. Old Town Trolley moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, and plaintiff was foreclosed from bringing the action. The plaintiff again amended her complaint, now asserting a breach of contract claim against Old Town Trolley as a “common carrier,” arguing that it was negligent or breached its contract with her. It is established law in Georgia that ticket holders have a right of action for the breach of contract of “carriage.” 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 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:

By

Under Georgia law, property owners are under a legal duty to maintain the premises, including the “approaches,” in a condition free of unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the invited public. Depending on the circumstances, a person who is injured on another’s property may be able to seek damages for any pain, suffering, and losses sustained. In order to bring an action in a “slip and fall” case, one must plead and prove two items:  first, that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and second, that the plaintiff, acting with ordinary care, lacked knowledge of the hazard due to the defendant’s actions or to conditions under the defendant’s control. The law can be complicated. but an experienced injury attorney from the Atlanta area would be able to review your case and determine your potential right to compensation.

The outcome of a premises liability case will depend a great deal on the facts and circumstances surrounding the claim, as well as the adequacy of the case presented and argued. In a recent case, Henderson, et al. v. St. Paul Baptist Church (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the court of appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the plaintiff’s slip and fall case to go forward. Here, the Hendersons were visiting St. Paul Baptist Church as visiting pastors at the invitation of Amos Lee, Jr., St. Paul’s pastor. Lee directed the Hendersons to park their car behind his, on church property to the left of the building. As Mrs. Henderson got out of the car, she stepped in a hole and fell, fracturing her leg.

The Hendersons brought a claim against the Church for premises liability and loss of consortium. The Church moved for summary judgment, claiming that it could not be liable for Mrs. Henderson’s injuries because they occurred when she attempted to take a “short cut” to the side entrance of the church, instead of walking to the designated route to the front of the building. Lee had testified that the hole Mrs. Henderson fell in was a “trench” that was intentionally dug in order to keep newly planted shrubbery watered. That trench was not visible because it was covered in pine straw and leaves, and there was no indication or marking in any way. Lee admitted that he did not warn the Hendersons about the trench. 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

Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

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

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

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