Articles Posted in Accident Law

In a recent opinion, a Georgia appellate court recently addressed several issues stemming from a car accident involving a teen driver and a pedestrian who was walking his dog. One of the prevalent issues on appeal is whether the defendant’s “Act of God” defense was enough to avoid liability for the injuries that the plaintiff sustained.

The case arose after the teen driver hit the pedestrian and his dog as they were in a cross-walk near a large grocery store. The driver argued that she should not be liable for the accident because the sun blocked her vision, and she was unable to see the plaintiff or his dog. The appellate court found that the trial court appropriately granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the defendant’s act of God defense.

In Georgia car accident cases, an act of God defense is an affirmative defense. Therefore, the law requires plaintiffs to “pierce” the defense to successfully move for summary judgment. In other words, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the defendant’s affirmative defense is insufficient under the law. If the plaintiff meets that burden, then the defendant must show that there is a genuine issue of material fact.

Georgia does not experience many incidents of winter weather; however, that is all the more reason that car accidents are more frequent during these times. The United States Department of Transportation reports that every year, over 135,000 people suffer injuries, and over 1600 people die in weather-related accidents. Fatal accidents are most likely to occur during the winter season when ice or snow is present. Drivers must take proper steps to avoid a Georgia weather-related car accident. Georgia drivers that fail to do so may face liability for the injuries that their negligence causes.

Although some accidents may not be anyone’s fault, many accidents can be avoided if motorists engage in safe driving practices. Even though blizzards are rare in Georgia, many regions experience snow every year, and the mountainous areas experience frequent snowfalls totaling almost 20 inches a year. Accumulated snow can pose many hazards to Georgia drivers and passengers, especially those that do not have experience navigating these weather conditions. Many drivers do not reduce their speed, and this can result in a loss of control and collisions. Additionally, many drivers fail to keep a safe following distance, and this can result in difficulty braking in time and subsequently rear-ending other drivers.

Ice and freezing rain are much more common than snow in the state, and these conditions are often more dangerous than snow. Inexperienced and unsafe drivers should take precautions before getting on the road. Precautions include things such as, making sure they clear their windshields and mirrors, have appropriate tires, and working headlights.

Georgia roads pose a serious danger to pedestrians attempting to cross the street. This danger is compounded when it is dark outside or in conditions with low visibility. In a recently decided case, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a fatal auto-pedestrian accident case. As a result of the appellate ruling, the plaintiff will not have the chance to recover damages from the death of her spouse.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff sued the defendant after he struck and killed her husband in an early morning auto-pedestrian collision. Evidently, the decedent was hit while he was crossing a poorly lit road, over a mile from the nearest crosswalk. Using the testimony of an expert witness, the plaintiff argued in her complaint that the defendant, who was driving to work at the time of the crash, was negligent in failing to see the pedestrian, and therefore liable for damages related to his death. Before trial, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment with the court, arguing that there was no legal basis to find he was negligent. The defendant’s motion was denied by the court, which resulted in the recently decided appeal.

According to the Georgia Court of Appeals, a valid negligence claim must establish four elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) loss or damage to plaintiff’s legally protected interest resulting from the breach. On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to meet the first element of a negligence claim.

Recently, a Georgia appeals court issued a ruling after a defendant appealed a trial court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment. The case stemmed from a car accident where the decedent was fatally injured while crossing the road in front of the defendant’s car.

According to the opinion, the defendant was on his way to work when the victim walked onto the highway. The defendant alleged that he heard a vibration and his car jerked, but he did not realize he hit anyone. The impact caused the defendant’s window to shatter. In an attempt to avoid another collision, he drove down the highway until he could park his car on the side of the road. When he returned to the accident scene, he realized that he injured the pedestrian. Tragically, the pedestrian suffered fatal injuries.

The pedestrian’s wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver. She alleged that he was negligent in operating his car and did not exercise due care. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that he engaged in any negligent act or omission. The trial court denied his motion for summary judgment, resulting in this motion to the appeals court. In reviewing the case, the Georgia appeals court discussed state negligence standards in personal injury lawsuits.

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of Georgia, the court considered whether a plaintiff could recover for emotional distress without any proof of physical injury. According to the court’s opinion, one of the plaintiffs in the case was involved in a crash with the defendant. The evidence presented at trial showed that the defendant failed to stop at a stop sign and crashed into the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff and his wife sued the defendant alleging negligence and gross negligence. They sought compensation for permanent injuries, past and future pain and suffering, loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity, and loss of consortium and loss of services.

After a jury trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs for a total of $14,550,000, including $7 million for pain and suffering, and $4 million for future pain and suffering. The jury found the husband was 25% at fault, and thus the plaintiffs were awarded the reduced amount of $10,912,500. The defendant appealed the verdict, arguing that the trial court should have given the jury an instruction on the “impact rule.”

The impact rule states that a plaintiff can recover for emotional distress only if there is some impact resulting in physical injury to the plaintiff. Under Georgia law, there are three elements to the impact rule. First, the plaintiff must have suffered some type of physical impact. Second, the physical impact must cause physical injury to the plaintiff. Third, the physical injury must cause the plaintiff’s emotional distress or mental suffering.

In a recent Georgia car accident case before a state appellate court, the plaintiff filed claims arising out of a car accident that killed her husband and seriously injured her son. She filed a claim against the local Emergency Medical Services (EMS), alleging that they failed to properly treat her husband’s and son’s injuries. She also filed a claim against the local County Road Superintendent (Superintendent), alleging that he failed to inspect and maintain the road. Both defendants claimed they were entitled to immunity. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claims against them, and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court considered whether the defendants were protected by immunity.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff’s husband was driving with his 12-year-old son in Atkinson County when he hit a hole in the road, and after he regained control of the truck, he hit a second hole and crashed into a tree. EMS responded to the scene and found the husband trapped on the driver’s side, and the son seated on the passenger side. The son allegedly told one emergency medical technician (EMT) to check on his father who was unconscious, but the EMT told him that they had to “get [him] out first.” The EMT told the son to jump off the truck, and when he said he could not jump, the EMT told him that jumping was the way he would get off. The son did so, and “had to walk” to the stretcher. However, the EMT who assisted the son testified that he picked up the son, laid him onto a stretcher, and carried him to the ambulance. The father was unconscious but breathing, and was removed from the truck, but stopped breathing while he was in the ambulance. EMS tried to resuscitate the husband, but he died of his injuries.

If a lawsuit is filed against a public entity or a public official, the public entity or official may be protected by official immunity. A public official is protected by official immunity if the official “has engaged in discretionary acts that are within the scope of his or her authority, and the official has not acted in a willful or wanton manner; with actual malice; or with the actual intent to cause injury.” In contrast, official immunity does not protect against ministerial acts that are performed negligently. Generally, ministerial acts are acts that are “simple, absolute, and definite,” and require “merely the execution of a specific duty.” In contrast, discretionary acts are acts that “call for the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment,” and acting on one’s own conclusions “in a way not specifically directed.”

Georgia personal injury cases generally have to abide by a two-year statute of limitations. This means that plaintiffs have two years after a car crash or other personal injury incident to file a lawsuit in court. However, there are exceptions to that rule, as one recent Georgia case demonstrates. In that case, the plaintiff was able to file the claim beyond the two-year statute of limitations because of the issuance of a traffic citation as a result of the crash.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the crash occurred between two cars in Fayetteville, Georgia in 2014. The collision took place on October 16, and thus, the statute of limitations would normally have run on October 16, 2016.

The plaintiff filed her lawsuit on November 10, 2016, and the defendant argued that the case was filed after the statute of limitations and should be dismissed. However, the plaintiff contended that the statute of limitations was tolled because the defendant was issued a traffic citation due to the crash.

Continue reading ›

Parties in a personal injury case have to take great care in maintaining evidence that may be relevant to the case, even if litigation has not yet begun. In one recent case before Georgia’s Supreme Court, the Court considered whether the defendant was properly sanctioned for failing to preserve evidence. The case may not seem as though it pertains to Georgia personal injury cases, however, the court’s decision applies equally to personal injury cases in which one of the parties is alleged to have destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve necessary evidence.

The Facts of the Case

A woman took photos of what she claimed was a bug in her food while she was eating at a work cafeteria. She emailed photos to the building superintendent, and also sent the photos to Walgreens to be printed before delivering them to her superintendent the following day. The food vendor was removed from the list of qualified vendors and later filed a claim as a result of the incident. Almost ten years later, the vendor became aware that there were printed photos in addition to the emailed photos. The superintendent did not provide the photos to the food vendor and admitted that he lost the printed photos at some point. The digital versions were still available, and the superintendent and the employee testified that the photos were identical, although the defendants disputed that fact.

The plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence due to the defendant’s failure to preserve the printed photos. The trial court found that the superintendent had been aware of the claim but still failed to preserve the printed photos or provide them to his employer’s lawyers. As a result, the trial court imposed a sanction for failing to preserve the printed photos. It decided it would provide a jury instruction stating that “spoliation of evidence creates a rebuttable presumption that the evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator.”

Continue reading ›

Although many people can safely drive a car year after year without an issue, driving a car is actually a complex activity that requires a significant amount of coordination, judgment, and skill. Like other technical skills, driving is something that takes practice to master. Thus, young and inexperienced drivers are those most likely to cause Georgia car accidents. Indeed, according to government statistics, there are over 180 fatal Georgia car accidents involving motorists aged under 21 years of age. Of course, this does not consider the number of accidents caused by inexperienced drivers as well as those resulting only in injury.

Regardless of a driver’s experience, they owe the motorists with whom they share the road a duty of care to safely operate their vehicle and to follow all posted traffic signs and traffic laws. When a youthful or inexperienced driver causes an accident, they may be held liable for any injuries that are caused as a result.

One issue that may arise in a Georgia car accident involving a young driver is whether that driver’s parents can be held responsible. This is important because most young drivers have few assets with which to compensate an accident victim. However, under the family purpose doctrine, parents may be liable for a child’s negligence in some circumstances.

Continue reading ›

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion concerning a car accident case in which the plaintiff claimed he was injured after a controlled burn was negligently executed. The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against a corporation after a truck in which he was riding as a passenger collided with a fallen power cable in the road.

The plaintiff alleged that the corporation, which operated a quail hunting reserve, was negligent in conducting the controlled burn on its property. The corporation conducted controlled burns each spring to prevent hazards and improve quail habitats.

Evidently, shortly after the defendant initiated a controlled burn, an employee came across a burning area near a power pole. The employee believed that the fire had spread from the controlled burn area and extinguished it. The next morning, the plaintiff, a passenger in a truck, came across a wire hanging across the road. The wire caught the back of the truck and caused the driver to lose control, resulting in an accident.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information