• $10.8 Million resolution of a wrongful death professional negligence case.
  • $3,000,000 to the surviving spouse in a wrongful death / medical malpractice case
  • $1.75 Million for a 26 year old woman who was injured and the injury resulted in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in her foot.
  • $1,900,000 to a man run over by a bus who sustained serious crush injuries to his legs
  • $1,120,000 for death of 48 year old man in a three vehicle collision
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

Published on:

By

A common mistake that unrepresented individuals can make following a car accident is to hastily agree to a settlement offer made by the defendant’s insurer and sign a liability waiver, precluding them from filing suit for any future issues that may arise, such as undeveloped or undiscovered personal injuries.

In one such case, it appears as though the plaintiff may have been represented, as there was very specific language regarding the nature of the limited liability waiver which she signed.

In the case, Watford v. Cowart, Dist. Court, MD Ga. (2013), the parties were involved in a car accident in Cook County, Georgia. Following the accident, the plaintiff filed suit, seeking damages for the injuries she alleges were caused as a result of the defendant negligently and recklessly operating her vehicle. Plaintiff’s initial complaint sought general damages, special damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Georgia State Law.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

Sometimes when car accidents occur, they are the result of a third party’s negligence, who was not actually involved in the collision.

In one such case, Wolfe v. Carter, 726 SE 2d 122, Ga. Ct. App.  (2012), a man suffered injuries when he became sandwiched between two tractor trailer trucks, when an unidentified driver made a u-turn across the highway. Apparently, the visibility on that day was very poor, due to some thick fog-like smoke. The drivers of the vehicles and law enforcement officials reported an inability to see more than 20-30 feet ahead due to the conditions.

An officer that responded to the collision believed that a fire must have caused the smoke, and thus contacted the Forestry Commission, and learned that only one person, the defendant in this action, had conducted a controlled burn in the area. The officer did not know whether the smoke on the roadway was caused by the controlled burn and conceded that it could have been caused by any fire in the area. Thus, believing that the smoke was responsible for the collision, and that the defendant was the only individual granted permission to conduct controlled fires around that time, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant. Continue reading

Published on:

By

One of the aspects of the litigation process of which non-lawyers may not be aware is the tactical manner in which defendants and their counsel may refuse to cooperate with what they are legally required to do. In the course of a lawsuit, both sides are required to provide certain information to the other side, so that they can gather evidence to build their case. This process is formally referred to as “discovery,” and can include things such as depositions (in person interviews), interrogatories (written questions), document requests, and other similar types of activities. Discovery is critical in personal injury and car accident cases, because it is the only means of gathering the sort of evidence necessary for trial. However, some may be surprised to learn that defendants can and do ignore legitimate discovery requests, even when they have been court ordered.

In one Georgia Court of Appeals case, for example, defendants were sanctioned for reportedly, ” intentionally destroying material evidence, for committing fraud on the court and the plaintiff, and for intentionally filing false responses to discovery requests.”

The defendants appealed the sanctions, and in the case, Howard v. Alegria, 739 SE 2d 95, Ga. Ct. App.  (2013), the Court of Appeals reviewed the long and sordid history of destruction of evidence and other fraudulent conduct.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

What happens when you file a lawsuit and the defendant doesn’t respond? Perhaps they hope that it will just go away? It doesn’t. In order to address cases whereby defendants are non-responsive, our justice system has a mechanism referred to as default judgment. However, simply not receiving a response does not necessarily mean that you may be entitled to a default judgment. There are certain requirements that must be met.

A recent decision entered by the United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division gives a thorough explanation of how a default judgment works in the context of a negligence lawusit following an injury car accident.

In the case, Mata v. Gallon, Dist. Court, M.D. Ga. (2013), the plaintiff filed a lawsuit following a car accident. According to her testimony, the defendant hit the car in which the plaintiff was traveling, as a result of speeding and losing control of his vehicle. As a result, the plaintiff was ejected from the vehicle she was in. Plaintiff was hospitalized for approximately three weeks for the severe injuries she suffered as a result of the collision. These included injuries to her neck and back, skull fractures, spinal column injuries, jaw injuries, and loss of an eye. Due to her jaw and skull injuries, plaintiff’s jaw had to be wired shut for some six weeks, and metal plates were placed in her face and head.

Continue reading

Published on:

By

In reviewing an appeal of a car accident injury case, SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Hanks, Ga: Court of Appeals 2013, the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, finding that expert testimony was not required to establish a causal link between neck and back injuries in a car accident case, and that evidence regarding the existence of a preexisting condition also does not have to be causally proved.

The case arose out of an incident where the plaintiff was rear ended, causing his head to slam against the driver’s side window, and pushed his car into the middle of the intersection. The plaintiff claimed injuries to his head, neck, back, and leg as a result of the accident. A jury found in his favor, and awarded him $13,000.

The defendant, Safeway, appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing testimony from the plaintiff’s doctor, and also in allowing the jury to consider an aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

The plaintiff’s doctor testified at trial regarding the result of his MRI, which showed a herniated disk, which he believed to be consistent with a timeline of around when the accident took place. Safeway argued that this testimony shouldn’t have been admissible, because the plaintiff should have had to prove that the injury was caused by the accident in order to be admissible. 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