Trial Attorney Blog

Bicycle accidents are increasing at an alarming rate as the popularity of road biking has increased over the last few years, and, as more people are turning to bikes as a means of transportation to save fuel. With the increase of bike riders it is only natural to assume that injuries would increase as well.
Our attorneys and staff are reviewing many of these matters. We are seeing the expected increase of injuries from the failure to wear a helmet and from improper positioning of a helmet. But, perhaps more disturbing is the rise of serious injuries and fatalities due to the negligent acts of motorists and others. As bikers and motorists share the road, many times the motorist will either not see the biker or negligently attempt a maneuver, such as passing, which results in serious injury or death to the biker.
Our attorneys recently resolved a tragic case involving the death of a young man after his bike handlebar became entangled in a wire hanging from a light pole. Unfortunately, he was thrown from his bike and struck his head on the concrete sidewalk. Our investigation revealed that this problem is endemic throughout the city of Atlanta. We located hundreds of light poles which had wires which were left dangerously unattached to the poles. There have been other reports of injuries under similar circumstances. Tragically, this promising life was extinguished due to the failure of workers to properly inspect the light pole and correct the problem.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently issued statistics indicating that in 2006 helmets dramatically saved lives in motorcycle crashes. The NHTSA estimates that had all motorcyclists involved in collisions worn helmets in 2006, 752 more people would have survived their injuries. As it was, in 2006 it is estimated that motorcycle helmets saved 1,658 lives. Over 4,800 motorcycle riders died in 2006.

Obviously, in those states that require helmet use, the number of riders wearing helmets are greatly in excess of those in states where there is no requirement that the rider wear a helmet. According to the NHTSA, only 20 states and the District of Columbia had laws on the books requiring all motorcyclist to wear helmets. In another 27 states, only people between specific ages (usually between 17 to 20 years of age) were required to wear helmets. Three states had no helmet use laws at all.

Given the statistics which indicate that helmets save lives and prevent serious injuries, it is clear that motorcycle riders should wear their helmets at all times. As we have indicated before, our practice mirrors these national statistics. In every serious injury case we have had involving motorcycle riders, we are confronted either with a death claim, an amputation claim or a serious head injury claim. These collisions are always serious for the rider. Thus, the greater protection for the rider the better the likely outcome. The NHTSA statistics bear out the experience of our serious injury and wrongful death attorneys.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (a division of the United States Department of Transportation), in the calendar year 2006, 4,810 people died in motorcycle crashes. This number was up over 5% from those killed in 2005 (4,576). The number of those killed in 2006 were at their highest levels since 1981. Additionally, according to the statistics maintained by the NHTSA, motorcycle fatalities have increased every year for the past consecutive 9 years.
Of course, there are more motorcycle riders on the road now than ever before. With rising costs of gasoline, this is expected to increase. Nonetheless, statistics indicate that motorcycle riders were, at least, 35 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash in 2006 per vehicle mile traveled and 8 times more likely to be seriously injured. The fatality rate for motorcycle riders in 2006 was 5 ½ times the fatality rate for occupants of passenger cars. In 2006, motorcycle riders accounted for 11% of all traffic fatalities, 13% of all occupant fatalities and 4% of all occupants injured.
Regrettably, of all fatally injured motorcycle riders, 27% had blood alcohol levels of .08% or higher in 2006. Thus, many of the fatalities reported by the NHTSA involved alleged contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider. Nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases, there was no alcohol involved and yet the fatality statistics continued to rise from the previous years. These statistics prove that motorcycle riders must be extremely careful, more so than passenger drivers. In the event of a collision, one driver has protection (airbags, seatbelts, car crashworthiness, etc.), the other has none other than a helmet. Defensive driving and heightened safety consciousness therefore are the best things a rider can do to protect themselves.

According to investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the March 2, 2007 Blufton University bus crash that killed 5 members of the Ohio Blufton University baseball team and injured 28 others was “an accident that didn’t have to happen.” After a year long investigation, investigators for the NTSB concluded that driver error, confusing highway signage and a lack of passenger safety features in the bus carrying the baseball team were all contributing factors in the collision which also claimed the lives of the bus driver and his wife.
Several of our lawyers driving to work pass the site of this tragic collision every day. The signage that was being used at the time was confusing and according to the NTSB is still inadequate from a safety standpoint even as of today’s date. Numerous recommendations were made by the NTSB to state and federal officials to improve the signage so as to reduce confusion for those using High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. NTSB investigators concluded that the bus driver operating the bus in question thought he was getting onto an HOV “thru lane” when he drove onto an elevated exit ramp plowing through a stop sign at highway speed and hurling from the overpass onto the interstate below. Investigators with the NTSB determined that Georgia Department of Transportation officials negligently changed the layout of the signs after having trouble with their mounting. The changes made by the Georgia DOT deviated from federal guidance about placement of certain exit signs to make them more clear. Moreover, there were 9 accidents which occurred at the site between 1997 and 2000 including 3 fatal collisions. The drivers in all of those crashes were from outside the Atlanta area. According to the NTSB, had appropriate investigation been done at the state level by the Georgia DOT regarding these prior fatalities, the tragic accident involving the Blufton University baseball team might never have occurred.
Even though the signage at the exit was confusing at the time, there was signage available to the driver of the bus indicating that he was taking an exit. Also, once he entered the exit ramp, inexplicably, he traveled for 14 seconds at a speed of 65 miles per hour, never once slowing down even though there were warnings and stop signs ahead. There was no evidence of breaking activity until after the driver ran the stop sign crashing over the barrier that lead the bus to crash onto the underpass below. Thus, according to the NTSB, not only did inadequate and confusing signage erected by the Georgia DOT contribute to the collision, so did driver error. Additionally, because the passenger bus did not have occupant restraint systems and neither had lap belts or shoulder harnesses available for occupant usage, there was clearly a lack of protection for those in the bus. Since many of the baseball team members were ejected from the bus and sustained serious injuries, the NTSB noted that had there been occupant safety restraint systems, such ejections may have been avoided.
Regrettably, there are no federal standards requiring that commercial buses have occupant restraint systems for its passengers although there is a strong argument to be made that even despite the absence of such requirements the available technologies and alternative designs available to the manufacturers of buses is sufficient to impose such an industry standard of care particularly since such restraint systems are widely available in European countries.

Continue reading

A baby in a Corpus Christi, Texas, hospital neonatal intensive care unit has died after receiving an overdose of the blood thinner heparin. The baby was one of up to 17 babies in a neonatal intensive care unit receiving overdoses heparin. Heparin is an anticoagulant often used to clean the IVs of patients and prevent blood clots from forming in the lines.

The problem with heparin overdoses of infants in hospitals entered the public arena last year when the twins of actor Dennis Quaid almost died after receiving heparin overdoses at a Los Angeles hospital. Since that time, Quaid has become an outspoken advocate of better controls in hospitals to prevent medication errors.

According to reports, nurses discovered the problem Sunday — two days after the medication is believed to have been first administered. A preliminary investigation concluded that the error occurred during the mixing process within the hospital pharmacy.

This past year our firm handled several motorcycle accidents involving wrongful deaths and serious injuries. What we see in these cases is the importance of a motorcycle rider having uninsured motorist coverage to protect their interests. Even where a motorcycle rider is doing everything right, is wearing a helmet and is operating the motorcycle safely, it is not uncommon for us to see wrongful death and serious injury cases in such contexts. For whatever reason, many people pull right out in front motorcycle riders simply because they do not “see” the approaching motorcycle. People are used to perceiving large vehicles moving towards them and when they glance in a particular direction and do not see what they are accustomed to seeing they pull out sometimes with deadly results. In those cases where the rider survives, obviously, it is crucial that there be sufficient liability coverage and/or uninsured motorist coverage available to address their medical needs and long term disabilities if the injuries are serious.

Most motorcycle accidents that we have seen are very serious matters involving either death or long term permanent injuries. There is so little protection for the motorcycle rider that in the event there is a bad collision, the rider, if he or she survives, may lose a limb, sustain head injuries and/or be permanently impaired in some manner. In many such cases, the at fault driver has the minimum limits available under Georgia law, being $25,000.00. Obviously, a $25,000.00 settlement is insufficient to meet the needs of the innocent rider, thus again emphasizing the importance of having uninsured motorist coverage.

In the hypothetical case where the at fault driver fails to yield right-of-way and hits a motorcycle rider, if the at fault driver only has $25,000.00 in coverage, the motorcycle rider can protect himself/herself, in such a situation by having excess uninsured motorist coverage. In Georgia, thanks to a new law, beginning in January of 2009, the amount of such coverage can be stacked on top of the available liability insurance coverage without any offset credit. Between now and then, the only amount of coverage which is available is the difference between the available liability coverage and the amount of uninsured motorist coverage above that amount. Thus, between now and January of next year, in the hypothetical case presented, if the rider had $100,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage, he/she could collect $25,000.00 from the at fault driver and $75,000.00 from their own policy. Beginning January of next year, the rider can ask for stacking coverage as part of their own insurance policy which will allow the rider to collect $25,000.00 from the at fault driver and the full $100,000.00 under their own policy.

Since the seminal case of Scott v. Harris as decided by the U. S. Supreme Court there seems to be a prevailing mood that “the gloves are off” and the police can chase a suspect who defies their orders to pull over for as long as possible notwithstanding the dangers to the public. Fortunately, even though this has been the reading by some of the Supreme Court Opinion, the legal landscape is hardly as bleak as some would think. Indeed, state laws like that enacted by the Georgia Legislature (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-6) still provide protections for innocent members of the motoring public when the chasing police officer fails to exercise “due regard” for the safety of the motoring public. An interesting question arises, however, when the police claim that they have a need to chase a fleeing suspect notwithstanding the dangers to the motoring public. While this may be true in some cases with respect to the suspect himself the question arises as to what should be done in the context of a fleeing suspect when he or she has in their vehicle passengers who may be completely unconnected with the reasons for the chase.

A typical example of what we are concerned about is the situation in which a teenage driver with teenage friends in his car is asked to pull over by a police officer. For whatever reason, the teenage driver decides to take off. The teenage driver may be driving without a license, he may be joy riding, he may be on juvenile probation, he may be in violation of his parents orders to return home at a certain time, etc. In short, teenage drivers are known to panic for a variety of reason unconnected with their danger to the public. And yet, if the police decide to chase such a suspect, not only are they endangering the fleeing suspect’s life and other members of the motoring public, they are clearly endangering the rights of the passengers trapped inside the vehicle.

We have been involved in several cases dealing with trapped passengers. Passengers in vehicles do not know what the driver may or may not have done in all cases. In some cases, the passengers may be in on the criminal acts being investigated by the police. In many other cases, however, there may be no evidence whatsoever that the passengers in the vehicle have done anything wrong and yet because they are trapped inside the vehicle, they are exposed to the risk of death by the police as chases continue in some cases for miles. We continue to believe that passengers like other third parties involved in these chases have rights which must be recognized by police. If the police have a reason to chase a suspect, so be it, however, when the danger to the public caused by the chase itself exceeds the danger to the public caused by the suspect’s alleged transgressions, then in that event, the police must exercise due regard for the rights of passengers just as they must exercise due regard for the safety of innocent third party motorists.

The World Health Organization issued its first guidelines on Tuesday aimed at reducing complications and deaths from the rising numbers of operations now being performed. Many who read the checklist will react by wondering why hospitals and surgeons have not been doing this for years.

The guidelines are a list of simple safety checks that the health organization said could halve the rate of surgical complications. The list is intended to improve anesthetic safety practices, avoid infections and improve communication among members of surgical teams.

One guideline calls for all members of the masked surgical team to identify themselves and their roles and ask simple questions like, “Does everyone agree that this is Patient X, undergoing a hernia repair?”

Earlier this year our Atlanta attorneys settled a wrongful death case involving a bicycle accident which occurred inside the city limits. In that particular case, the bicycle rider, who lost his life, became entangled with loose utility wires hanging from a utility pole near a busy intersection on Peachtree Street. The evidence established that the utility wires had been in a state of disarray for several months but had not been repaired. Unfortunately, this wrongful death case is not an isolated incident. Just this past week, we were retained to represent an individual who may be paralyzed for life due to a road hazard apparently caused by the negligence of the general contractor, subcontractors and/or the Georgia Department of Transportation .
When roadways and bridges are designed by public authorities, obviously, where it is foreseeable that one riding a bicycle may use the roadway, it is necessary that precautions be taken to protect bicycle riders from serious injuries. As an example, a storm drain that runs parallel to the road is a hazard. If a bicyclist’s tires should fall into the storm drain and the drain runs parallel with the road, not perpendicular to it, obviously the cyclist could be thrown from his or her bike if the wheels of the bicycle fall into the drain. Similarly, if there are expansion joints in the road over bridges where there is a 1-3″ gap in the road, the tire of a bicycle can fall into the gap again causing the bicyclist to fall and sustain serious injury. Thus, it is imperative that when roadways are designed that the safety of all users of the road be protected, particularly those who are the most vulnerable to serious injury which many times includes those riding bicycles and motorcycles.
Those riding bicycles know that when they go out on the road that they need to be extremely careful of other motorists. Drunk drivers abound and there are multiple hazards along the side of roadways. To find a hazard in the roadway or immediately adjacent to it, however, is not normally anticipated by the average rider. When a loose utility wire, an improperly installed storm grade or unguarded expansion joint is allowed to exist, serious injury and even death is foreseeable. Such conditions should not exist but sadly they do. Regrettably, it may very well be that litigation is the best tool available to address these safety failures. If significant money damages are awarded in such cases, those responsible for the safety hazards will be “hit in the pocketbook” and hopefully will be deterred from similar acts of negligence. Even if deterred from future acts this is little comfort for the present day victim of a preventable injury. Nonetheless, if it takes litigation to encourage safety reforms and prevent future injuries, so be it.

Georgia Court Watch is a project of Georgia Watch, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group committed to strengthening the rights of consumers in Georgia. It has recently issued its annual report on Georgia appellate courts. The reports shows that, contrary to the statements of many politicians, the Georgia Appellate judges are not activists and not overly consumer friendly.

The report analyzed the activity on payday loan, insurance coverage, medical misdiagnosis, and other significant consumer issues. The “2007 Annual Report” identifies and profiles the most noteworthy consumer-related decisions released by the appellate courts throughout the year, and identifies emerging trends.

“Many of the decisions reached by the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals significantly impact the rights that consumers have under law,” said Georgia Watch Executive Director Allison Wall. “Georgia Watch launched this project to provide ongoing, thoughtful, fact-based analysis.”