Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Published on:

By

Under Georgia law, an owner or occupier of land has a legal duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees. This does not mean that the owner is insuring the safety of people invited on its property. In fact, in order to bring an action for premises liability (a.k.a. a slip-and-fall case) one must present evidence of a hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries. People who are injured in a fall on another’s property may be entitled to compensation for their pain and suffering. Each case is fact-specific and must be analyzed by an experienced injury attorney with full knowledge of the laws applicable to cases brought in and around the Atlanta area.

In a recent case, Bryan Bank & Trust v. Steele (Ga. Ct. of App. 2014), the plaintiff, Bonnie Steele, fell on the sidewalk outside the Bank and suffered injuries. During her deposition, Steele described seeing a metal edging around a flowerbed next to the sidewalk while walking into the Bank. On her way out, she took the same route back but suddenly fell and landed on her back. She could not say for certain what caused her to fall, stating that she believed it was the fencing (metal edging) because it appeared to be protruding out. Upon further questioning, Steele acknowledged that the fencing could have been moved as a result of the fall. In essence, plaintiff was unable to state for sure whether the fencing was on the sidewalk before or after she fell.

The Bank moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals granted the Bank’s application for interlocutory review of the trial court’s decision. The Bank alleged that plaintiff provided no evidence of a hazardous condition. After reviewing the facts, the court of appeals pointed out that Steele did not know how she fell or what caused her to fall. Further, she was unable to state whether she tripped or struck her foot against some object. While plaintiff assumed that she tripped on the fence border, she also admitted that her fall might have been what caused it to move. 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

Car accidents occur with some frequency in and around the Atlanta area.  People who are injured in a car crash due to the fault or negligence of another driver may be able to file a lawsuit to recover compensation for their suffering and losses.  There are many kinds of claims a plaintiff can assert, depending on the circumstances of the accident and the parties involved.  The local state laws and procedures will govern each step of the proceedings.  If you have been injured in a car accident, it is critical that you contact an experienced local injury attorney who will be able to help you achieve the best possible recovery in your case.

In a recent case, Mastec North America, Inc. et al., v. Wilson, Ga. Ct. of App. (2014), the plaintiff, Gilda Wilson, was seriously injured in a car accident with a vehicle operated by a person, Gregory Piccione, who was working at the time, driving a pick up truck owned by MasTec.  According to the trial court record, Wilson claimed that Piccione ran a red light and struck her car, causing her to sustain serious injuries.  Piccione denied that it was his fault, asserting that it was Wilson who ran the red light. Significant to this case is MasTec’s admission that Piccione was “in the course of employment” when the accident happened.

There were conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred.  Also, Piccione was talking on the phone at the time of the crash; he was using a hands-free device.  Wilson, who was ejected from the car upon impact, was not wearing a seatbelt at the time.  Wilson brought a suit against Piccione for negligence and against MasTec under a theory of “imputed liability.” As part of these claims, Wilson sought punitive damages against both defendants, while also asserting a claim against MasTec for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, training and entrustment.  She claimed that MasTec conducted a background check of Piccione at the time of hiring and had discovered assorted convictions for speeding and failing to obey a stop sign. These citations were issued while he was driving his own, personal vehicle. He had also never been in a car accident before this one. Additionally, Piccione had completed a defensive driving class while working at MasTec. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Plaintiffs in a personal injury action arising from a car accident typically bring a negligence lawsuit against the other driver or drivers involved in the collision.  But negligence actions can arise from any number of circumstances, and the facts and parties involved can make a huge difference in the outcome of the proceedings.  In order to achieve the maximum recovery, it is critical that a person who has been injured in a car accident reach out to an experienced injury attorney who is fully apprised of the local laws, rules and procedures in the Atlanta court system.

In certain cases, a plaintiff may not be able to recover damages for injuries sustained in a car accident.  In a recent Georgia Supreme Court case, Stevenson v. City of Doraville, et al., Ga. Sup. Ct. (2013), the plaintiff was injured while driving on Interstate 285 during a rainstorm.  He was in the lane nearest the median of the six-lane highway when his car started malfunctioning.  The plaintiff tried to maneuver his car over to the right shoulder of the road, but he only reached the third lane from the right.  At that point, he saw a police vehicle with its emergency lights on near the right shoulder of the road. The officer turned on his flashing lights when he saw that the plaintiff was having car trouble.  Once the car stopped moving, the officer’s vehicle was to the right and behind the plaintiff’s.

The plaintiff turned on his hazard lights and waited in the car for the officer’s assistance.  The officer however reported the problem and decided not to try to approach the stalled vehicle due to the traffic on the road. After waiting for a few minutes without receiving any assistance, the plaintiff got out of his car and tried to get the attention of the officer.  Moments later a tractor-trailer truck hit his car, which next crashed into the plaintiff, resulting in a multi-vehicle accident.  The plaintiff sued the City of Doraville and the officer claiming that he was negligent in failing to redirect traffic away from the disabled car and thereby causing the traffic to move toward the plaintiff’s car by turning on his emergency lights while stopped at the outer lane of the highway right near the plaintiff’s car. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Car accidents are a frequent occurrence in Atlanta and throughout the state of Georgia.  Because car accidents have the potential to cause injuries to innocent victims, prudent drivers typically secure insurance policies to cover future claims for damages. No two cases are identical, and depending on the specific circumstances and parties involved, there are various ways to pursue a claim for recovery of one’s losses.  Victims of car accidents who have sustained pain and suffering are entitled to maximize their right to compensation.  To do so, it is critical that you contact an experienced injury attorney who is fully aware of the local laws and procedural rules applicable to the case.

In a recent case, Hospital Authority of Clarke County et al. v. Geico General Ins. Co., Ga. Sup. Ct. (2014), the highest court in the state reversed the court of appeals, and in doing so, set forth its own interpretation of a statute of limitations provision applicable to recovery on hospital liens. The case emanated from a car accident that occurred in March 2010 between Justyna Kunz and Crystal, Joseph and Elizabeth Kalish. Kunz sought medical treatment at Athens Regional Medical Center.  The Medical Center and the Hospital Authority of Clarke County (hereinafter, the “Hospitals”) filed three separate hospital liens totaling $66,999.22. Kunz then sued the Kalishes, who were insured by Geico Insurance Company.

On September 10, 2010, in a letter to Kalishes’ attorney, Kunz accepted their $100,000 policy limit settlement offer. A short time later, on September 23, Kalishes’ attorney also sent a letter confirming the agreement and enclosed a settlement check for $100,000, along with the necessary documents. Significantly, the settlement agreement was officially signed on October 8, 2010, and in order for it to be effective, Kunz was required to satisfy the above-referenced hospital liens. According to the facts of the case, the liens were not satisfied. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Many premises liability causes of action are based on a plaintiff’s “slip and fall” or “trip and fall” claim. The Georgia Supreme Court has identified two elements that a plaintiff must plead and prove in order to bring a viable slip and fall claim: 1) that the defendant had either actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and 2) the plaintiff, despite exercising ordinary care, had no knowledge of the hazard due to the defendant’s actions or to conditions under the defendant’s control. While the basic concept of liability may seem straightforward, the particular facts of each case will determine the ultimate outcome.  An experienced Atlanta premises liability attorney will be able to quickly identify the critical components of your case to determine eligibility for compensation.

In a recent case, Kroger Company v. Schoenhoff, Ga. Ct. App. (2013), Steve and Melanie Schoenhoff (the “plaintiffs”) filed a personal injury and loss of consortium action against the Kroger Company (the “defendant”) after Melanie slipped and fell while she was shopping at a Kroger store in Georgia.  As Melanie was walking through the floral area of the store, she slipped and fell in a clear liquid, identified as water, in front of the floral display case. Melanie’s testimony revealed that she was watching where she was walking, but did not see anything on the floor until after she fell.  The evidence also showed that Kroger had no actual knowledge of the water on the floor before the incident.  The issue at trial was whether the store had “constructive knowledge” of the water on the floor in the location where Melanie slipped and fell.

There are certain ways that a plaintiff may show that a defendant had constructive knowledge: 1) if an employee was in the immediate area where the fall occurred and had the chance to fix the hazardous condition before the fall, or 2) if the hazardous condition had existed for a sufficient length of time that it would have been discovered and remedied had the property or business owner exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises.  Here, the jury found in favor of plaintiffs, awarding Melanie over $2.6 million in damages, and Steve Schoenhoff $150,000 for his loss of consortium claim. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Many personal injury actions involve car or other motor vehicle accidents.  Typically, the drivers’ insurance companies get involved to help settle and resolve the matter.  The importance of knowing and understanding the local laws applicable to a personal injury claim cannot be overstated.  In a recent case, Kemper v. Brown, Ga. Ct. App. (2014), the court threw out a purported settlement agreement, concluding that the insurance company’s response to the settlement offer constituted a counteroffer, instead of a mutually agreed upon settlement.  To ensure that someone with experience and dedication handles your case, you are encouraged to contact a local Atlanta personal injury attorney with a proven success record representing victims in car accident cases.

In the case mentioned above, the plaintiff, Kemper, was injured when a vehicle driven by Brown struck her motorcycle. Kemper sustained serious injuries and was taken to Atlanta Medical Center to receive emergency treatment for her injuries.  Law enforcement charged Brown with several traffic violations, including driving under the influence and reckless driving.  Each party had automobile insurance: Kemper was insured by Progressive Insurance Company and Brown was insured by Equity Insurance Company, who later assigned the claim to its third-party carrier (claims administrator), Statewide Claims Services.  The policy under Equity contained a $25,000 per person bodily coverage limit.

Kemper sent a demand letter to Statewide, requesting that it send the maximum amount under the insurance policy, and in response, Kemper promised to sign a limited release.  She set forth a deadline and information concerning to whom the check should be made payable. In response, Statewide sent the $25,000 check attached to a letter to Kemper, agreeing to settle the claims, but adding a demand that the money received be placed in an escrow account with respect to any liens pending.  Due to this language in the letter, Kemper considered it a counteroffer, rejected the terms and filed suit against Brown. Continue reading

Published on:

By

 Under Georgia law, an award of attorney fees is typically not available unless authorized by contract or state statute. Case law indicates that a plaintiff in a personal injury accident may not be entitled to collect his or her attorney fees if there exists a “bona fide controversy” between the parties, despite any allegations of one party engaging in “stubborn litigiousness” or causing unnecessary trouble and expense. It is critical that parties understand the above-mentioned terminology to avoid bringing any superfluous claims.  If you or someone you know has been injured in a truck accident, due to the fault of another, you are encouraged to contact an experienced injury attorney who is fully familiar with the laws and procedures in the Atlanta courts.

In a recent decision, Horton et al., v. Dennis et al., Ga. Ct. of App. (2013), the court agreed with the lower court’s finding and refused to award plaintiff attorney fees based on allegations that defendants (appellees herein) had been “stubbornly litigious” and caused them unnecessary trouble and expense. Here, plaintiff was severely injured when a tractor-trailer operated by defendant Joseph Dennis, crossed the centerline of a Georgia highway and crashed into plaintiff’s truck. Plaintiffs’ claims for damages cover multiple injuries, including allegations that the victim suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, resulting in memory and mental impairment and nerve damage.

Plaintiff and his wife sought recovery for his personal injuries and her loss of consortium, respectively. Just before the trial was set to begin, defendants stipulated to liability – namely, fault for how the accident occurred and responsibility for the accident. They also conceded that certain of plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by the accident. But they continued to contest that the crash was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s traumatic brain injury or pelvic nerve damage. At this point, plaintiff obtained the court’s permission to amend the complaint to add a claim for attorney fees, arguing that defendants had been stubbornly litigious and caused them unnecessary expense and trouble. Continue reading

Published on:

By

Car accidents are a common occurrence in and around the Atlanta area.  Unfortunately, many innocent victims are injured each year as the result of one driver’s negligence while behind the wheel.  Injuries sustained in car accidents can range from mild scrapes and abrasions to more serious matters such as broken bones, head trauma, paralysis and even death.  For victims of such cases, it is critical to speak to an experienced, local injury attorney as soon as possible after the accident to determine your rights to compensation for any suffering and losses.

There are many important procedural steps to take when initiating a personal injury action.  The local laws can be confusing and there are critical time limitations to adhere to every step of the way.  Another important aspect of any injury case involving a car vehicle accident is the victim’s right to recover under various insurance policies, depending on the circumstances.  The manner in which one handles the case can impact a victim’s entitlement to a potential damages recovery.

In a recent case, Newton v. Ragland, Ga. Ct. of App. (2013), the appellate court reversed the lower court’s refusal to enforce a settlement agreement in a personal injury action that arose from car accident.  In March 2009, Newton ran a red light at an intersection and crashed into Ragland’s vehicle.  As a result of the accident, Ragland sustained severe injuries.  Newton’s vehicle was covered under two separate insurance policies: her own automobile liability insurance (USAA General Indemnity Company policy) and a Zurich Insurance Company policy that was held by a dealership that owned the car at the time of the accident. 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