Trial Attorney Blog

This is a question that we are asked by virtually every client in every case we have. The answer is that if a settlement offer is made which is approximately equal to what one can expect to receive at a jury trial then the case should be settled. In other words, there would be no need for a jury trial because the settlement offer being made is approximately what one would likely receive in front of a fair and impartial jurors. If the offer is below what one is likely to receive from fair and impartial jurors then we recommend that clients not accept the settlement offer. Obviously, if the offer is above what we reasonably believe a fair and impartial jury would award in a particular case, we recommend that our client accept such an offer.

It is not always easy to predict what a fair and impartial jury would do with a particular case. The nuances and unique facts of any case obviously influence claim evaluation. If liability is strong and if damages are good and the client otherwise makes a favorable impression, such a case has a greater settlement value than does a case where there are liability issues, damage issues and/or client problems. As always, the facts are key but sometimes the law as it pertains to the unique facts involved will dictate as well the outcome of the case and/or the evaluation of a particular claim.

Sometimes the law is not favorable to a particular position that a party has in litigation. The less favorable the law to their position, the less valuable the claim from a claim evaluation standpoint. In those cases where a client has been victimized by the negligence of a third party, they are truly innocent in the premises and their damages are clear and easily proven, such a case has greater settlement value than does one where the damages may be attributable to acts other than the negligence, there is contested liability based on the facts and circumstances of the case and/or the client’s expectations are unreasonable or they do not make a very positive impression and thus a jury may not like them.

Mediation can be employed at any stage of a civil dispute. It can occur before or after a lawsuit is filed. Our experience at this firm has typically been that mediation occurs after a lawsuit is filed and after the parties have become well acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the dispute. Once the parties have access to all the operative and materials facts via written discovery and depositions, it is not uncommon for one party to suggest a mediation of the dispute.

Once mediation is agreed upon, a third party neutral or mediator is selected to preside over the mediation session. The third party neutral is typically an experienced attorney or judge who has experience with the type of dispute at issue. Whether the case involves medical malpractice, products liability, wrongful death, a tractor-trailer accident or other personal injury claim, typically, one tries to select a mediator who has extensive experience in such a case. The parties then appear jointly at a prearranged mediation conference after which time the mediator takes over as a presiding third party neutral.

The role of the mediator at the mediation conference is to facilitate settlement negotiations. The mediator typically listens to both sides summarize their respective contentions and then the mediator meets privately with each side trying to get one side to make an offer and the other side to make a counteroffer thereto. During the negotiation process the mediator probes the weaknesses and strengths of each side and encourages both sides to be open minded always agreeing to compromise their respective positions. Any successful mediator or third party neutral tell both sides that in order for a settlement to occur both sides have to negotiate in good faith and have to agree to compromise, that is accept less than what they would ideally want but nonetheless try to reach a good faith compromise agreement to resolve the dispute.

The simple answer to this question is – Yes. Mediation is a tool that is oftentimes successfully used to settle disputes in a variety of contexts including personal injury claims. Whether the case involves breach of contract, employment disputes, medical malpractice, products liability or an automobile accident, mediation has proven to be an effective tool in resolving civil disputes. While it is not always successful, nonetheless, mediation is something that should be considered by virtually any client when trying to resolve a civil dispute. If a reasonable settlement offer is made at mediation, the case can be resolved. If not, the parties can walk away and proceed with a trial by jury.
Here at our firm, of course, we do not prepare cases for mediation, we prepare them for trial. The best way to get a successful settlement result is to demonstrate to the opponent in a civil dispute that if the dispute cannot be amicably resolved a jury is very likely to award a substantial verdict against them. By demonstrating strength to the opponent during the civil litigation process, one increases the chances of getting a fair settlement for their claim. Thus, if we agree to mediation of a particular claim involving a client with a personal injury case, we try to do so with the posture of the case being a demonstration of strength verses weakness in agreeing to submit to a settlement conference. In subsequent blogs, we will describe the mediation process and why it is an effective tool in resolving claims. For the time being, we are simply trying to advocate that in any civil dispute mediation can be used to try to settle the case on an amicable basis by means of compromise. As is true of any other settlement agreement, the key word here is compromise. If both sides are willing to compromise their portion of the case and agree in good faith to negotiate with one another, mediation can be used to successfully resolve a personal injury claim. We caution, however, that an effective attorney will always be extremely prepared and will demonstrate that in the event the mediation is unsuccessful, the opponent will very likely incur increased legal expenses and may very well pay more at a jury trial than they would at a successful settlement. If the case can be settled at mediation for a fair sum – great. If it cannot, a prepared attorney will typically obtain from a jury as much (or more) than could have been obtained earlier at a mediation.

As Georgia injury lawyers know, motorcycle accidents often result in serious injuries, which include brain injury and unfortunately sometimes death. Just yesterday, a teenager between the ages of 16 and 17 years old was injured in a motorcycle accident at Highland Park, a 1000 acre motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) park in Cedartown, Georgia. Details of the accident are not know at present; however, officials have indicated that the victim has suffered head iinjuries. Redmond EMS requested Cedartown Rescue to assist.
If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle accident, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP at (800) 228-9159. Our lawyers have been protecting the rights of Georgia injury victims for over 45 years.

The personal injury and wrongful death lawyers at Finch McCranie LLP see suffering and loss on a daily basis through the clients we assist. However, rarely have we seen death, destruction, and suffering on a scale as that which is occurring in Haiti as a result of the tragic earthquake.
This week, in a non- partisan effort to help alleviate this terrible situation, former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton joined forces to lead the effort to raise funds for relief. They issued a call for monetary donations to assist those who have been devastated by this tragedy. The lawyers at Finch McCranie have answered the call and made sizable donations to the relief effort.
Former Presidents Bush and Clinton have issued a call for many Americans to meet this challenge by donating even a small amount to the relief effort. We are urging everyone to join us in responding. Please give to the effort. As the former Presidents point out, even a small donation multiplied many times will go a long way towards alleviating the pain and suffering being endured by innocent men, women, and children in Haiti.

Mandatory arbitration agreements deprive citizens of their right to seek redress in the courts of this country. Many large businesses place these clauses in their consumer agreements as a requirement. It has been consistently shown that the arbitrations which flow from these clauses are skewed in favor of the large corporations. Simply put, arbitrators know that they will not continue to receive business from these companies if they rule against them.

Recently, public pressure has forced many credit card companies to remove these unfair clauses from their contracts. However, they remain in many business agreements which consumer sign every day.

The American Association for Justice won a small victory last month in the long war over mandatory arbitration. Congress banned defense contractors from including in their employment contracts any provisions that require arbitration. This legislation arose from the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a former employee of defense contractor Kellogg Brown & Root who reported being raped by her coworkers in Iraq.

Children are being exposed to dangerous chemicals in toys and items manufactured in China. In recent years there have been numerous recalls of goods manufactured in China due alarming safety concerns. However, it seems the Chinese are continuing to flood the US market with dangerous and even deadly products.

Lab testing organized by The Associated Press revealed that cadmium is present in children’s jewelry, sometimes at levels exceeding 90 percent of the item’s total weight. Cadmium is a soft, whitish metal that occurs naturally in soil. It’s perhaps best known as one half of rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries, but also is used in pigments, electroplating and plastic.

Most people get a microscopic dose of the heavy metal just by breathing and eating. Plants, including tobacco, take up cadmium through their roots and people absorb it during digestion or inhalation. Without direct exposure, however, people usually don’t experience its nasty side: cancer, kidneys that leak vital protein, bones that spontaneously snap.

The use of unnecessary force by law enforcement officers is a common and inexcusable problem. Many of the attorneys at Finch McCranie LLP have law enforcement backgrounds and recognize the inherent dangers of police work and the need at times to use force. However, this does not justify the use of unnecessary force.

The United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit has recently issued an opinion addressing this issue in the context of Taser use. The Court, headquartered in California has sent a strong warning to law enforcement officers that should make them hesitate before routinely using Tasers. It ruled last week that a police officer can be held liable for delivering a high-level electric shock to an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat.

The case arose out of an incident involving a young man who was driving to his parents’ home when he was stopped for speeding. He had previously been stopped and ticketed for On the same trip, he was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt.

The product liability lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP pay close attention to the recall of dangerous products that can lead to the wrongful death of innocent people. This week, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Polaris Industries has issued a voluntary recall of approximately 8,500 all-terrain vehicles because of a potentially dangerous steering problem, caused by a defective and dangerous front-end component. The recall applies to 2009-2010 models of the Polaris Sportsman ATV. Although there have been no reported injuries to date, there have been 19 reported incidents involving the ATV. According to Polaris the front suspension ball joint could separate from the steering knuckle, causing the rider to loose the ability to steer the ATV. Depending on the circumstances, if this occured, it could result in the operator being seriously injured or it could result in the wrongful death of the rider.
Anyone who owns a 2009-2010 Polaris Sportsman is encouraged to return it to the closest dealer who will make the necessary repairs free of charge.
The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented the victims of dangerous products of all kinds for over 40 years. If you have been injured or lost a loved one as a result of using a dangerous product, the attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP can help. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-229-9159.

Georgia injury lawyers know that dog bite incidents often result in very serious injuries and in some cases, death. We have had a number of these cases over the years. The most recent case involved a real estate agent who was attacked by a large dog. Although the dog was tied up at its owners home, it was inadequately restrained by a collar which was itself a defective product. As a result, the dog got loose and literally bit off the entire calf of the female victim. We sued the homeowner for negligence and the manufacturer of the collar on a products liability theory and obtained a sizeable settlement from both.
It was reported today that a former UPS driver has sued Joe Namath alleging that he was attacked and seriously injured by Namath’s dogs while he was making a delivery to his home. It is alleged that the victim in that case has undergone four surgeries and has been totally disabled from work since the incident in 2007. If the allegations are true, lets hope that Namath has a large liability insurance policy.
If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of being attacked by a vicious dog, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP who have helped similar victims for over 40 years.