Trial Attorney Blog

The motorcycle accident lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many motorcycle riders over the years who have been seriously injured in collisions involving automobiles. A few months ago we settled a case where our client sustained very serious injuries to his leg and foot when his motorcycle was hit broadside in an intersection by a doctor who ran a red light in her SUV. Although the motorcycle was not demolished, the injuries were devastating. As a result of the injuries he sustained, doctors had to amputate several toes and part of his foot. In this case and most others, the motorcycle rider was obeying the law and did nothing to cause or contribute to the collision.

Motorcycles are by their very nature far less crash worthy than closed vehicles and crashes frequently result in catastrophic injuries or death. They are also less visible to other vehicles and pedestrians and less stable than 4-wheel vehicles. Motorcyclists and their passengers are more vulnerable to the hazards of weather and road conditions than drivers in closed vehicles. According to the DOT, 5,154 people died in motorcycle crashes in 2007 and motorcycles are 35 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in crashes per vehicle mile driven in 2006, and 8 times more likely to be injured according to the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Because of the seriousness of the injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents and because many of the motorist who cause these accident are under-insured, Georgia lawyers need to be creative when representing riders. It is imperative that the victim’s attorney examine all potential avenues of recovery so that the client can be fully compensated. Other areas to review include failure of the motorcycle’s mechanical systems, failure of other motorcyclists to observe the motorcyclist, failure maintain the roadway and debris on the roadway from trucks, including tire tread separation.
If you or a loved one have been injured in an automobile accident, truck accident or motorcycle accident, consult the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP. Our firm has been representing personal injury victims for over 45 years.

Continue reading

Georgia injury lawyers know that accidents involving serious burn injuries are more common than one might think. The American Burn Association estimates that 1.1 million significant burn injuries occur every year in the United States. Most commonly, burns are caused by: automobile accidents, gas and other flammable liquid fuel explosions, scalding/hot water, electrical accidents, industrial accidents, gasoline spills, building fires, defective candles, lighters and matches; however, the causes are numerous. We have seen cases involving propane powered forklifts which leak gas inside of a parked semi-trailer and explode. We have also seen cases involving injured textile workers scalded by hot water in dye vats. Recently we represented a homeowner whose home exploded after a local propane supplier negligently filled a residential propane tank.
In most serious cases, experts in many different areas are often necessary in assisting burn victims and their families deal with the long term physical and psychological affects of these painful and debilitating injuries.
Our firm understands that your immediate concerns include getting your medical bills paid, limiting potential lost wages, and ensuring insurance coverage for future treatment of your injury. Our experienced attorneys will assess your situation and discuss all the options available to you, as well as work with insurance companies and other involved parties to ensure your needs are quicky and appropriately addressed. We will work to protect your legal rights and pursue rightful compensation for long term medical bills, lost wages, disfigurement, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, and lost enjoyment of life. If you or a loved one have experienced a burn injury, the experienced Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP (800-228-9159) for a free consultation to discuss your legal options.

Assuming an administrative claim is properly submitted and is denied and a lawsuit is thereafter commenced, the lawsuit must be filed in United States District Court, not in a state court. One advantage of proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act is that such a suit can be brought in the Federal Judicial District where the plaintiff resides or where the negligent act or omission occurred. Thus, if a person is traveling, as an example, and is hit by a postal carrier running a stop sign while on vacation, the lawsuit still can be filed where the plaintiff lives. Once the lawsuit is filed, a copy of the Summons and Complaint must be served upon the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, DC and upon the United States Attorney for the District in which the action is brought.
It must be noted that when a Complaint is filed against the United States that the Complaint can only name the United States of America as the defendant. The Complaint cannot name the employee or the federal agency in the Complaint but only the United States of America. As the defendant, United States will have sixty (60) days in which to answer a plaintiff’s Complaint not the typical thirty (30) days. Where to file? U.S. District Court–either where the tort occurred or where the claimant resides. Who to sue? Only the United States of America.

Georgia injury lawyers see numerous dog bite cases every year. More than 4.7 million people in the United States are bitten by dogs every year. Nearly one out of every six bites are serious enough to require medical attention. Georgia’s “Dog Bite Statute,” provides, in part: “A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured.”
Absent a local leash law, a dog owner is not under a duty to confine it or otherwise protect others from it until the owner becomes aware of the dogs vicious or dangerous propensities. This doctrine has given rise to the popular, but not legally accurate, maxim that the “first bite is free”. Under current Georgia law, in order for an injured person to recover in a dog bite case, they must show not only that the dog had vicious propensities, but that the owner knew or should have known of those propensities, and that the injured person had no such knowledge. Obviously one way to show that the owner knew or should have known of a dog’s vicious propensities is to demonstrate that the owner was aware of prior actual dangerous conduct on the part of the dog. For domestic animals such as dogs, vicious propensities may also be proven by showing that the animal was required to be on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government and that the animal was not on a leash at the time of the injury. Under such circumstances, proof that a valid “leash-law” was in effect and that the animal’s owner was not in compliance with that law at the time of the occurrence is all that is necessary to prove liability for damages.

Continue reading

Under the specific provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) there is no right to a jury trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2492. This is one of the disadvantages of suing the United States government but because the FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, the provisions of the Act control. Simply stated, the limited waiver provisions provide that there is no right to jury trial when suing the United States government. What this means is that once the case is assigned to a United States District Court judge, he or she will not only be the judge that will resolve any legal issues, he or she will also be the Trier of Fact.
Typically the way these cases work, if they cannot be settled, is that a trial will be scheduled in front of the United States District Court. The United States District Court judge will become the finder of fact. Typically, District judges require the parties to submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in writing prior to the beginning of the trial. Once the trial begins, of course, there is no necessity that the case be quite as argumentative as it might be in front of a jury nor is there any necessity that counsel try the case as he or she would if a jury were present. Nonetheless, the moving party, the claimant must call witnesses under oath, introduce depositions, call experts and otherwise do the same thing that anyone would do before a jury in order to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence which is the burden of proof. While a District Court judge has the authority, if they wish, to impanel “an advisory jury” to issue a non-binding ruling on the dispute, most judges dispense with this and try the case by themselves.

Beginning today, several new Georgia laws intended to reduce automobile accidents, tractor trailer truck accidents and motorcycle accidents go into effect. One of these is the Texting While Driving law. Georgia drivers under the age of 18 will be charged if they talk or text on a cell phone while driving. Under this new law, all drivers, regardless of age will be charged if they write, send or read a text message, email or access the Internet while driving. If found guilty a motorist will be fined $150.00 and will be assessed 1 point on his or her driving record.
Another new Georgia law, the Pickup Truck Safety Belt law, requires both drivers and passengers of pickups to buckle up except for certain farming restrictions. Georgia injury lawyers know that many victims of automobile accidents and trucking accidents would not have sustained serious injuries if they had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Unfortunately many deaths have resulted from the failure to buckle up. Years ago Georgia passed legislation requiring seat belt use for occupants of automobiles and vans; however, pickup trucks were exempted. For many years, legislation requiring pickup truck seat belt use was defeated by pressure brought to bear from legislators who represented rural constituents.

Continue reading

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP represent clients who have suffered personal injuries from bicycle accidents or who are survivors of cyclists killed in accidents caused by the careless or negligent conduct of others. Surprisingly, many of these bicycle accidents do not involve other drivers but were caused by the negligence of road contractors, construction companies, and even public utility companies. Injuries suffered as a result of these types of accidents can be severe and life altering. Most common are nerve damage, broken or dislocated bones, and injuries to the neck, back, brain, or spinal cord. Sadly, some of these bicycle accidents result in the wrongful death of the cyclist.
Recently, we represented the family of an Atlanta cyclist who was killed when his bicycle struck a copper ground wire which had been pulled loose from a utility pole and was hanging out across a public sidewalk.

The photograph above was taken by Atlanta Police when they arrived at the scene of this tragedy. Given that the utility pole was literally located within 5 inches of Peachtree Street, the grounding wire was likely pulled loose by a passing bus or large truck because it was not secured properly to the pole. Although they are not visible in the photograph, our investigation showed that there were other wires which had been cut and left hanging from the pole and nearby tree.
During our investigation of the case we became aware that in metropolitan Atlanta, there are literally thousands of utility poles with loose wires hanging off of them in close proximity to public sidewalks and roadways. Many of these wires and cables serve no purpose and are there because someone was too lazy to either remove them or secure them in such a way so as not to endanger the public. Now that we are aware of this danger, hardly a day goes by that we do not see example after example of this hazard. The photograph below, taken on June 21, 2010 directly in front of the Dunwoody Library, illustrates the point. This potential hazard has been present for months.

Other recent bicycle cases involved road/bridge construction defects. Two cases involved bridge expansion joints which were left open and created a serious danger to cyclists.

Continue reading

Damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act are measured by the law of the state in which the tort occurred. Thus, the state statutes control what damages may be obtained. However, there are some differences principally in the context of wrongful death claims. Because every law in every state is different in this regard, suffice it to say that counsel must be familiar with the District Court opinions in their district as well as in their state. The differences can also dictate who has the right ot claim damages – e.g. a spouse or administrator of an estate.
Even though actual damages may be obtained from the United States government for pain and suffering, medical expenses, out-of-pocket expenses caused by the tort, etc., punitive damages are not allowed against the United States. Only compensatory damages may be recovered. While pre-judgment interest is not allowed against the United States, post judgment interest is allowable assuming the government appeals an award from a District Court and loses the appeal. Again, because the law of the state where the tort occurs controls who has the right to seek damages, injured parties should confer with counsel who practice in the area whre the tort occurred.

Motorcycles and motor scooters are becoming increasingly popular in Atlanta due to congestion and their gas saving qualities. However, we are increasingly seeing terrible and tragic accidents involving motorcycles and motor scooters. Unfortunately, many of these incidents are caused by distracted drivers who simply do not see the motorcycles or motor scooters.

In today’s Atlanta newspaper there is an article concerning a 55-year-old Atlanta resident who was killed while riding a motor scooter. She had stopped on Peachtree Road to make a turn into her residence. A car following her struck the motor scooter from behind resulting in her death.

Just recently, a friend driving a motorcycle avoided serious injury when a car made a left turn in front of his motorcycle on Briarcliff Road in Atlanta. The car turned into his path so quickly that the motorcycle struck the vehicle. The rider was thrown over the car and landed on the road. Somehow, he avoided serious injury.

Under the law of the State of Georgia, law enforcement officials enjoy official immunity for acts performed within the scope of their discretionary authority. As long as they are performing discretionary acts and not ministerial duties, they can only be held liable if they are acting outside the scope of his authority or with actual malice or intent to injure. These are very difficult propositions to prove in the routine case. If an officer, however, violates a simple ministerial task, he can be liable but even here sometimes there is a difficulty suing a particular law enforcement official because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which more often than not is implicated in these cases.

If a county official is involved, typically, the county can only be liable for acts where there has been a statutory waiver of immunity such as the statute which exists providing for a waiver of sovereign immunity in connection with damages caused by the negligent use of motor vehicles. As an example, in a police chase, if the officer recklessly disregards proper police procedure, the officer can be sued and official immunity overcome assuming there is evidence of reckless disregard of proper police procedure for the chase because of the statutory waiver of immunity. In other contexts, it is difficult to prove a waiver of sovereign immunity and consequently it is difficult to hold an officer liable for acts committed within the scope of his/her discretionary authority.

In many of the articles we have written thus far, we keep using “easier said than done” when it comes to bringing legal claims against law enforcement officials. The law is protective of officers acting within the scope of their authority and usually only allows claims to go forward when there has either been a clear breach or abuse of the authority and/or an intent to cause injury such that misconduct is established to exist. If the officer violates a simple ministerial task, again, he may be liable on a different legal basis.