Trial Attorney Blog

Our serious injury lawyers have investigated cases involving off-road recreational vehicles. Now, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, is probing the design of these so-called recreational off- highway vehicles after reports of fatal accidents involving new products which are currently unregulated.

.

The investigation involves several brands and more than 30 daeths. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Yamaha Motor Rhino was a focus of the inquiry, with at least 30 deaths.

As Georgia injury lawyers who have handled many automobile and truck accident cases, we sometimes see defective products that lead to injury and death in collisions. One such defect involves airbags. Although airbag failures are not common, there are many reasons for there failure. Many fail because of design defects or defects in components.

Just last month, Nissan Motor Co Ltd announced plans to recall 204,361 vehicles from its 2007 and 2008 model years in the United States due to the possibility that a passenger side airbag could fail to deploy properly in an accident.

The voluntary recall covers 2007 and 2008 Nissan Altima, Altima Coupe, 350Z, Murano and Rogue; and Infinity G35 Sedan, G37 Coupe and EX35 built from March 12, 2007 to May 27, 2008, according to a notice the company provided to the U. S. Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a lawsuit against a crib distributor for allegedly ignoring a nationwide recall of bassinets that can cause babies to suffocate. Madigan criticized federal regulators Wednesday for failing to take aggressive action against SFCA Inc., the owner of the Simplicity brand.

Madigan’s lawsuit seeks a recall that SFCA would publicize in newspapers statewide. It also seeks a refund for retailers. “Our investigation revealed that SFCA continued to distribute recalled products that posed serious risks to children,” Madigan said in a statement. “I will not allow this company to wash its hands of responsibility to Illinois families.”

The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission first announced on Aug. 28 that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Toys “R” Us Inc., Kmart Corp., Big Lots, Target, J.C. Penney recalled Simplicity Inc. bassinets after the strangulation death of at least one baby. Other retailers have followed.

According to news reports, Atlanta Police Officer Sgt. Darrell Johnson was killed on Friday morning, October 24 when his vehicle was struck head-on by a fleeing suspect during a high speed police chase. Not only was the police officer killed, the fleeing suspect was killed as well.
The newspaper reports are sketchy, however, it appears that the high speed chase began when authorities received a 911 call from a member of the public who had spotted the suspect’s car while weaving. The officers apparently attempted to make a traffic stop of the suspect. When the suspect refused to stop for the suspected traffic violation, he took off, thus initiating a “high speed” chase. During the chase, the suspect lost control, crossed the center line and hit Sgt. Johnson’s vehicle head-on.
According to the news accounts of this tragic incident, it appears that the fleeing suspect was a veteran of the Iraq war. He may have had personal issues based on his experience there. The police allege that he was driving while drunk, but there is no indication whether this is based on a blood alcohol test or just based on his driving at the time. Either way, it seems evident that a drunk driver who is not being pursued by the police is not nearly as dangerous as is the drunk driver who is attempting to elude officers while traveling at high speeds while impaired. At least one expert, Professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina, has been known to say that the one thing that is much worse than a drunk driver is a drunk driver being chased at high speeds by the police.
While it is difficult to evaluate this particular case based on the sketchy news reports, what is troubling about the account is that it appears that this high speed police chase was initiated for a traffic violation only. Clearly, the danger to the public presented by a high speed police chase can be greater than is the danger presented by a mere traffic violator. The police should not be chasing someone for a mere traffic offense when other innocent members of the motoring public are placed at risk of either serious injury or death. To impose the death penalty upon an innocent member of the motoring public in order to apprehend a traffic violator makes little or no sense. The police simply need to recognize that sometimes the suspect has to be allowed to escape so that the chase itself will not endanger the innocent motoring public.
Having seen many other innocent persons killed or injured during high speed police chases, we continue to advocate that the police should chase at high speeds only when the public itself is endangered by the suspect. Yes the police should chase murderers, rapists, carjackers and other armed violent felons, but to chase someone at high speeds for a traffic violation is to unnecessarily place the entire public at risk. When the death penalty is imposed upon the innocent for a minor traffic offense, we would submit that the public is neither served nor protected which, of course, is the paramount duty of all law enforcement officials.

Continue reading

The Food and Drug Administration has taken issue with drug manufacturer Bayer over advertising claims for two aspirin medicines manufactured by the company. Bayer promotes the medicines as leading to healthy hearts and stronger bones.

The FDA sent two warning letters to Bayer for never submitting proof that its pills are effective in battling heart disease and osteoporosis as claimed by Bayer. The two drugs are Bayer Women’s Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium and Bayer Aspirin With Health Advantage.

Treatments for those diseases must be reviewed by government scientists and cannot be sold over the counter, the food and drug agency said. Doctors recommend aspirin to treat aches and pains and as a blood thinner for patients with heart disease.

In our serious injury practice, we are often encountered by cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular collision. The tractor-trailer driver contends that he was forced off the road by an unknown John Doe motorist. The at fault driver who ran over the pedestrian claims that he or she could not see the pedestrian due to lighting conditions. The driver who is speeding denies that, in fact, he was speeding, and on and on. In cases involving serious or catastrophic injuries and/or death, it is often necessary in such cases to retain the services of a qualified accident reconstruction expert to establish exactly what happened. A qualified forensic engineer typically can reconstruct an accident based on measurements made at the scene by investigating police officers and/or based on the physical damage to the vehicles. A crush analysis can be performed on vehicles whereby a trained accident reconstruction expert can determine the speed of the vehicle which had to have occurred in order to create the objective crush damage to the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle’s front end is knocked in by a foot or so by another vehicle, the engineer can get the respective weights of the vehicles and can determine through calculations exactly how much force had to be applied to deform the vehicle to such an extent. This then can be translated into speed which can prove liability on behalf of the driver who caused the collision.
For those unfortunate victims of serious injury claims, particularly in those cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular crash or collision, it is necessary that such a victim confer with counsel who is experienced dealing with accident reconstruction experts. Quite literally, a good accident reconstruction expert can either make or break a case where liability is contested. Our firm likes to use engineers from the Georgia Institute of Technology because they carry quite a bit of credibility with local juries. However, we have also worked with accident reconstruction experts throughout the country depending upon the type of vehicle collision involved. For example, there are some experts that specialize in under-ride situations where a car under-rides a tractor-trailer, there are other experts who specialize in engineering issues concerning the design of dangerous roads and bridges and there are other experts who have considerable expertise with respect to rollovers, seatbelts, brakes and the like. The point to be made, of course, is that in any serious or catastrophic claim, the victim needs to confer with counsel who is experienced in dealing with forensic engineers so that responsibility for a particular collision can be reconstructed by that engineer and liability established. Without proof of liability, of course, counsel’s ability to obtain compensation for the innocent victim of a serious collision is limited, thus because such proof is so important, an accident reconstruction expert should always be considered in any potentially serious injury case involving contested liability issues.

Needless to say, our attorneys are often asked by our clients when they should settle their personal injury lawsuit and in what amount. These question, many times, presuppose that both liability and damages are clear enough to warrant a settlement in a particular case. Oftentimes, liability is hotly contested as are damages and a case is therefore made more difficult from the settlement standpoint. However, in a case where the liability of the person causing the injury is rather clear and the damages are well documented, a fair settlement should be achieved. It is with respect to this type of case that we attempt in this blog to answer the question posed.
When should the client settle his lawsuit when he or she has a good case of liability and damages? The answer is when an offer is made that represents the fair value of the claim. How is the fair value of a claim determined? By analyzing Jury Verdict research data for similar cases involving similar facts of liability and damages in similar venues to make sure that the settlement offer being made is most likely the same amount that could be obtained by the client in front of a jury. Our attorneys tell our clients that if they are offered in settlement an amount of compensatory damages that would roughly be what they could expect to receive from a fair and impartial jury then they should settle their case. If they do not get such an offer they should refuse the settlement and proceed to trial. Obviously, if they get an offer over and above the claim evaluation of what a fair jury would do, they clearly should take the settlement offer.
Many times our clients tell us to settle cases when we recommend against it. Sometimes an offer is made that, in our judgment, is lower than what we would obtain from a jury and nonetheless the client does not wish to gamble and wishes to settle the case even though the amount of money being offered might not reflect the best settlement possible. In other cases, when a fair offer is made, we have had clients who have told us not to accept the offer because they do not think it is enough based on their own subjective evaluation. Obviously, when subjectivity enters into the picture and dominates the analysis, cases become difficult to settle.
One who has been seriously injured has a great deal of difficulty attaching a dollar figure to their pain and suffering. Indeed, no amount of money can compensate for amputated limbs lost vision, paralysis, broken backs, broken necks, incredibly complicated surgery, lost jobs, foreclosed homes, etc. We see all of these things in serious and catastrophic injury cases and therefore it is very difficult to talk about “fair” compensation for such claims. The innocent victim of negligence, who was sitting at a red light and hit by the drunk driver, who undergoes surgery, loses their job and is permanently injured has a great deal of difficulty determining what might be a fair settlement for their case. Subjectivity, obviously, enters into the picture which is why it is they need objectivity from their attorney. An objective attorney looks at the facts, compares it to what other juries are doing under similar circumstances and advises the client what a fair settlement would be, again, that being the amount of money that a jury most likely would award if they heard all the evidence, both on liability and damages.

Continue reading

Our attorneys routinely handle serious injuries arising out of car collision and crashes. We are always amazed to learn just how little the public knows about automobile insurance coverages and generally how they work. The purpose of this blog is simply to set forth some of the basic principles so that the public can be educated about how automobile insurance coverage works in the typical case.
When someone runs a stop sign and causes a car crash and collision, the innocent victim who did nothing wrong to cause the collision but, nonetheless, is injured has a claim against the at fault driver. Under Georgia law, as is true in most cases, the legal claim cannot be filed against the insurance carrier for the driver but only the driver alone. The driver’s automobile liability insurance policy, however, will provide the at fault driver with a defense against the claim.
In order to legally operate a vehicle in Georgia, all drivers must have a valid liability insurance policy with minimum coverage in the amount of $25,000.00 per person $50,000.00 per accident. What this means is that if there is a car crash or collision and someone is injured, the at fault driver’s insurance company will be responsible to pay no more than $25,000.00 to any person injured in the accident, and no more than $50,000.00 for all persons injured in an accident no matter how many persons are involved. Obviously, such minimum limits are woefully inadequate to address the serious injury or catastrophic claim. This is why we always recommend to our clients that they purchase uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.
In the hypothetical case mentioned, if the at fault driver runs a stop sign and catastrophically injures the innocent victim, should the at fault driver only have the minimum limits required by law, that being $25,000.00 per person $50,000.00 per accident, it is evident that the $25,000.00 in coverage would probably be consumed by medical bills arising from the incident not to mention lost wages, pain and suffering and other economic and non-economic damages. To protect one’s self from the negligence of a third party who has minimum or no insurance coverage, the public should always purchase uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for the benefit of themselves. If in the hypothetical situation the innocent victim had $100,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage, even if the at fault driver only had $25,000.00 in coverage, the innocent victim could seek the difference from their carrier, that being $75,000.00 in underinsured coverage for a total recovery of $100,000.00 ($25,000.00 liability coverage and $75,000.00 underinsured coverage) verses a recovery of only $25,000.00 which would have been the maximum recovery had there been no uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage available.
In addition to liability insurance coverage which is mandated by law to operate a vehicle, as mentioned, the importance of uninsured motorist coverage cannot be stressed enough. For those who do not have good healthcare plans, there is also the availability of Medical Payments coverage which applies to medical bills arising out of an automobile collision regardless of fault. Once again, we advise those clients that we represent to always look at their medical payments coverage very carefully and to explore whether they need such coverage should they not otherwise have good healthcare coverage.

Continue reading

Today, Delta Enterprise Corp a children’s products maker will announce a recall of 1.59 million cribs linked to two infant deaths. This recall follows other recent recalls of cribs and bassinets involving other manufacturers.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, is expected to hold a news conference later this morning to announce the recall, which is being conducted on a voluntary basis by the company. Mandatory recalls are rare, though the CPSC sometimes has to pressure manufacturers to agree to repair or pull their products from the market.

According to the company, the recall results from two different types of hardware used on cribs sold from 1995 through 2005. The hardware, which includes safety pegs for one set of cribs and spring pegs for another, can create a hazard if not properly installed. The improper installation can cause the drop side of the cribs to fall and disengage, creating a gap that can entrap and suffocate babies.

There is a common misconception that all work related injuries are solely covered by Workers’ Compensation statutory benefits. While it is true that any employee who is injured on the job while working for their employer is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, this does not necessarily mean that the injured worker is limited to the recovery of such benefits. If a third party, such as an independent contractor unrelated to the employer, participates in a negligent or wrongful act that results in a injury to the innocent victim, there may be a claim that can be filed against that third party separate and distinct from the workers’ compensation benefits available to the injured employee for the on-the-job injury.

Oftentimes in our practice, we see situations where clients have been represented by other attorneys who have only recovered workers’ compensation benefits for them, notwithstanding the fact that there was a potential third party claim. As an example, if an employee is injured in a manufacturing plant due to a defective machine, there may be a third party product liability claim against the company that manufactured or maintained the defective machine. If the injured employee is hurt on the job because of the negligence of a third party vendor or supplier, there may be a liability claim that can be asserted by counsel for the injured employee against that third party.

It is always important in any on-the-job injury case that counsel diligently explore the possibility of pursuing third party claims. Workers’ compensation benefits are quite minimal, particularly where catastrophic injuries are involved. While the injured employee is entitled to receive repayment of their medical expenses, lost wage benefits are less than $500.00 a week. Accordingly, if someone is catastrophically injured, the only available recovery for pain and suffering and lost earning potential will be a third-party liability suit assuming a third party was a participant in the underlying act that lead to the on-the-job injury.