Trial Attorney Blog

In our personal injury practice we are oftentimes astounded at the lack of understanding by the public of the important nature of uninsured motorist coverage. Many people do not know what uninsured motorist coverage is. Regrettably, many people learn what it is too late to benefit from such important insurance coverage.

In order to get license tags to lawfully operate a vehicle in Georgia, the motorist must have a minimum of $25,000.00 in liability insurance coverage per person, $50,000.00 per accident. What this means is that if a motorist runs a stop sign and injures an individual, they must have liability insurance coverage that will pay a minimum of $25,000.00 in damages to the injured individual. As anyone knows with today’s rising medical costs, however, if anyone is seriously injured, $25,000.00 will not be adequate to compensate the injured individual much less pay medical expenses. Thus, an uninsured motorist can even include those who are underinsured as the term uninsured motorist under Georgia law includes both motorists who have no insurance coverage whatsoever, that being their insurance policies have lapsed or have been cancelled or never procured to begin with and those who have minimal coverage but have far less coverage than is needed for damages caused by their negligent acts..

Uninsured motorist coverage applies to a situation where someone is injured by an at fault motorist who either has no insurance at all or has minimal insurance coverage which is insufficient to address the damages caused by the negligent acts. If a drunk driver is illegally driving with no insurance and seriously injures someone, there is no insurance through the drunk driver and there will be no insurance for the injured individual unless they were prudent enough to purchase uninsured motorist coverage to protect themselves. Uninsured motorist coverage protects the injured individual through their own policy as uninsured motorist coverage is a part of everyone’s policy should they choose to purchase it. While it is not required to be covered as part of one’s policy, under Georgia law it is very important that if the family’s budget can afford it, that optional uninsured motorist coverage should be purchased.

Our personal injury lawyers have seen closed head injuries in every locale surrounding metropolitan Atlanta whether it be Austell, Snellville, Roswell, Alpharetta, Jonesboro, Sandy Springs or the other numerous locales near the city. Victims of closed head injuries oftentimes have the most serious injuries we confront due to swelling of the brain caused by the trauma. What we have learned from taking numerous medical depositions and researching these claims is that a serious head injury can have profound consequences for the victim in situation where there is no skull fracture, per se, but rather merely “a closed head injury.” A closed head injury occurs when the brain is shaken within the skull itself. The brain is subjected to trauma when the bicyclist falls off the bike onto the pavement and strikes his head or when the pedestrian is hit by the car and lands on the road, again striking their head. However an accident occurs, when a victim’s head is injured, if the skull is not fractured, all of the trauma is contained within the skull. This is why it is called a closed head injury, because there is no open wound or opening of the skull via a fracture. If the trauma to the head and skull are severe enough, the brain can swell inside the skull (with no place to go) which can cause permanent brain damage sometimes leading to a coma, a stroke or paralysis.
We have seen innumerable closed head injury cases which have had life altering consequences for the victims of such injuries. Sometimes these injuries are difficult to initially diagnose because there is no skull fracture or other obvious injury. However, if the victim begins manifesting problems with memory, speech and/or cognitive abilities, the medical profession then begins to investigate the cause of these problems which typically leads to an MRI of the brain. Sometimes the MRI will show the swelling and sometimes it will not. Sometimes a neuropsychological evaluation is necessary to make a proper diagnosis. The fact remains that head injuries can lead to serious brain injuries, which in turn, can lead to life altering consequences for the victims of “closed head injuries.”
If you or any loved one has been subjected to trauma due to the negligence of a third party and you have sustained a closed head injury, it is obviously imperative that you be seen by a doctor who has considerable experience in dealing with such cases. The same is true for any attorney employed to investigate and represent the victim of a negligent act which caused such an injury. If there is to be an adequate financial recovery in such cases, there must be an adequate understanding of the significance of the injury and the difficulty in treating it. In short, closed head injuries are usually very serious and must be investigated promptly and handled with the utmost care and diligence. Not only does one need competent medical assistance in these cases, if there is a claim to be brought against a negligent third party, competent legal counsel is also imperative for the victims of such injuries.

In metropolitan Atlanta, our lawyers are seeing more and more pedestrian personal injury cases. Due to congested conditions caused by increasing population and more motorists on the road, as might be expected, there are more incidents involving pedestrians. Many cases involve situations where pedestrians are not in walking in crosswalks and are struck while crossing a road, sometimes in broad daylight. Other cases involve pedestrians crossing the road at night when they are difficult to see. Other cases involve joggers and people on sidewalks who are injured due to third party negligence. As might be imagined, these cases are typically very serious because when a pedestrian who has no protection is struck by a car, the injury is likely to be a very bad one.

In Georgia, every driver of a vehicle has duty to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon a roadway and shall exercise proper precautions upon observing any child or obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person. This law is found at O.C.G.A. § 40-6-93. The courts have held that this statute establishes that motorists on the highways must exercise ordinary care to both discover and avoid persons in the roadway.

Georgia is a comparative negligence jurisdiction which means that if the pedestrian fails to exercise proper care for their own safety then the jury can consider that in apportioning damages between the pedestrian and the at fault motorist. If a pedestrian is more negligent than the at fault motorist, the claim will be barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. If the pedestrian is negligent but not as negligent as the motorist who causes the injury, then the negligent motorist can still be held liable but their liability is reduced by the percentage of the negligent pedestrian.

Having handled police chase cases for over a decade, I have yet to see a case in which the police admitted wrongdoing when a high speed pursuit turned out badly. Obviously, when a high speed pursuit ends in tragedy and someone is killed or seriously injured, the police know that immediately. In cases where the pursuit should not have been initiated and/or continued, the wagons are then circled and numerous explanations and rationalizations are provided as to why the police were merely “doing their duty” and were doing absolutely nothing wrong. Many times this is exactly the case. The police were doing their duty and they were doing nothing wrong and had every right to be chasing a dangerous offender who may have committed a forcible felony as an example. However, in many other cases, the police have done something wrong. That is, they were exposing the public to great risk of serious injury or death with virtually no need to chase the offender (such as situations involving missing tail lights or minor petty or misdemeanor offenses) and the pursuit then “turned out badly.” In situations where the police are chasing minor offenders at high rates of speed on congested roadways the danger to the public always will always outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. And yet, in such circumstances, when the pursuit ends in tragedy, the police will “have done nothing wrong” and were merely “doing their duty.” The wrong was committed by the fleeing suspect, not the police so they will say. But the suspect (a minor transgressor) was no serious danger to anyone until they were chased.

The rationalizations we often see in these cases are that “the pursuit had not begun, we were merely trying to catch up to the suspect.” By offering this rationalization the police hope to convince the public that they did not violate their pursuit policies because they were not actually in a pursuit. Another common defense is that “we were not in pursuit, we are acting in emergency mode attempting to warn the public up ahead of the dangers presented by the motorist.” Another rationalization is “we had no intent to immediately apprehend the suspect,” meaning that if we did not have an intent to apprehend, we could not have been in pursuit but were merely following the vehicle. Indeed, “following the vehicle” or “tailing” the vehicle is another rationalization offered rather than “pursuing the vehicle.” Another defense: “it was the officer’s discretion” under the policy to chase or not to chase. (Therefore, he can never be wrong). Another defense: we had terminated the pursuit and had resumed normal speed. (Videotapes are often missing when this one is used). The rationalizations and explanations are endless but having practiced in this area for many years, the point to be made is that according to themselves the police very rarely do anything wrong, even in those situations where they do.

Regrettably, the natural human instinct to deny wrongdoing when a mistake has been made is what is preventing change in this area. Nothing will change unless the parties who have made the mistakes acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. As long as rationalizations and explanations are offered necessary change will not occur and the innocent will continue to die. Regrettably, in this particular field, police chases continue unabated with hundreds of innocent people dying annually and thousands of others being seriously injured. Until and unless the law enforcement community is willing to admit that they sometimes have made mistakes, they will never learn from them and the innocent public will continue to pay the price for them.

Our personal injury lawyers unfortunately have seen far too many cases involving traumatic amputations. In many of these cases, the tragedy is compounded by infection that sets in shortly after the original trauma. If one loses a leg below the knee, for example, and there is an immediate amputation after the traumatic event, it is not uncommon to see subsequent amputations due to the development of infection. In some cases we have handled, there have been problems with gangrene, which required multiple amputations. The patient may start off with a below the knee amputation and end up with one above the knee.
All amputation cases arising from trauma are serious cases and must be handled with the utmost care and attention to detail. Obviously, the medical professionals have to deal with the complications caused by infections subsequent to the traumatic event but counsel must also be alert to the complicating features of such developments in each case. For example, when one develops an infection shortly after a traumatic event, they are not typically eligible to be fitted with a prosthetic device. The longer the infection lingers and the treatment necessary to treat it, the longer it is before the patient is eligible to receive the prosthesis. Studies have indicated that the length of time from the passage of the original traumatic event to the time when the patient is fitted with a prosthesis is very important because the longer the wait, the greater the difficulty for the patient. Indeed, this is one of the problems with infection because it delays the fitting of the prosthesis and thus delays the patient’s rehabilitation, sometimes with long term effects.
Whether the amputation be to a finger or a limb, the complexities of these cases are always unique to the individual patient and the case. It is imperative that counsel understand the long term sequelae of infection because such infections can have a bearing on a client’s long term prognosis and therefore their long term medical needs and vocational, physical and emotional challenges.

Our Atlanta, Georgia car accident lawyers frequently review cases in which the occupants of cars have suffered severe injuries or death while not wearing seat belts. In many of these cases the injuries could have been prevented had seat belts been in use.

Fatality figures released Monday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reveal that more than two-thirds of young drivers and passengers killed in nighttime car crashes aren’t wearing seat belts.

According to the report, seat belt use actually is rising slightly nationwide. Total belt use rose to 82 percent last year from 81 percent in 2006. Twelve states had rates of 90 percent or better, led by Hawaii and Washington. Only three were below 70 percent: Arkansas, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Traumatically induced electrical injuries are not only a common form of trauma but also complex and potentially devastating to the victim. The physical and emotional manifestations and severity of electrical trauma encompass a wide spectrum of symptoms ranging from a brief unpleasant sensation due to contact with a low intensity household current to instant death and/or massive injury from high voltage electrocution. Unlike a thermal burn, electrical injuries commonly involve multiple body systems and organs which are very difficult to manage and treat. In our serious injury and wrongful death practice we have encountered many such injuries and can attest to the fact that these cases are often complex, both legally and medically.

One of the difficulties for the victims of such injuries is the physical side. Injury due to electricity may include burns to the skin and deeper tissues, heart disturbances, and neurological problems. The higher the voltage involved, typically the worse the injury and the worse the outcome. It is not uncommon for there to be amputations associated with such occurrences.

Our firm has handled wrongful death electrocution cases where workers have been electrocuted on the job due to negligence of third parties. We have also handled serious electrical injuries where the victim survives but is left with a mountain of medical problems and bills, not to mention lost wages. As is true of any serious injury case, it is imperative that competent counsel be engaged at the earliest opportunity to protect the victim’s rights. While the victim will face a long ordeal in recovering from his or her injuries, a prompt and thorough investigation of the incident which caused the injury many times will enable competent legal counsel to provide legal relief for the victim.

We are continually disturbed when we hear reports of persons injured by unsafe glass–decades after the need for “safety glazing” material (safety glass) was recognized. Our serious personal injury lawyers have delved deeply into the history of glass injuries in representing clients who have suffered what can be life-threatening injuries from unsafe glass, in premises liability cases tried successfully. We hope to share what we have learned about these dangerous products so that future injuries from dangerous glass can be prevented.
For more than thirty (30) years, the dangers of using glass that leaves sharp, jagged edges when it breaks has been known.
In a 1972 opinion, one court discussed the dangers of glass injuries from glass that was not “safety glass”: “‘Purposeful footsteps, impact, the harsh, shattering crash of jagged spears of glass falling and disintegrating on the floor, and disabling and disfiguring injuries or death — this sequence of events is acted out, according to safety experts, in 40,000 American homes annually.’” Moody v. Southland Inv. Corp., 126 Ga. App. 225, 230, 190 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1972) (quoting Wolfstone, “Glass Door Accidents,” 14 Am. Jur. Trials 101, 105).
The 1972 Moody case concerned a patio door made of non-tempered glass that shattered and injured the plaintiff. The Court discussed testimony from experts that “serious injuries are caused by nontempered glass,” and that “[t]empered glass is harder, and it won’t break as easily, and then when it breaks, it doesn’t come in sharp, jagged pieces, where you are liable to get cut.” Id. at 229, 190 S.E.2d at 581. The Court also observed that “tempered glass was available for use on the door [in question] in 1967, when it was first installed.” Id. at 228, 190 S.E.2d at 580.
For many decades, manufacturers, builders, and architects have known that “plate glass” which breaks in a sharp jagged way. Much of this information has been summarized in a Report in one of our cases prepared by Phillip L. Graitcer, DMD, MPH, who has been an Adjunct Professor at the Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta, and is the former Director of the International Unit of the “National Center for Injury Prevention and Control” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

Continue reading

According to Healthgrades, an independent health care ratings company, 247,662 patients studied between 2003 and 2005 died from potentially preventable problems. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 1.5 million patients every year suffer from mistakes with medications.

People can sue for damages under state law if they’re harmed by drugs and medical products, but the Bush administration argues that states have no right to fault a company for selling a product that has been reviewed and approved by the federal government.

“Blocking such lawsuits, in my view, would do great harm to the public health,” Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim, an internal medicine physician at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement.

In what seems to be a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do,” one-time U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, an advocate for limiting the right of ordinary citizens to sue for damages, has settled a $1 million lawsuit Friday against the Yale Club of New York.

Bork sued in Manhattan federal court last year claiming he fell stepping onto a platform to speak. Bork’s lawsuit alleged he injured himself so badly at the June 2006 event that he needed surgery and was left with a limp. He faulted the club for not having stairs or a handrail leading up to the platform.

Lawyers for the Yale Club blamed Bork, saying any injuries he sustained were at least partially his fault for not recognizing potential risks, which the club said were “open, obvious and apparent.”