Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act. A key component of this law was to prevent attorneys from contacting members of a victim’s family for at least forty-five (45) days after an airline crash. After a crash involving serious injuries or deaths, families need to be left alone to tend to family matters. They do not need to be besieged by attorneys seeking to profit upon their misfortunes. In recognition of the fact that oftentimes members of the Bar fail to adhere to the high standards of professionalism we would hope would be adhered to without this law, Congress passed this law to protect victims of these tragedies.
We read last week that a Detroit lawyer has been ordered to pay $5,000.00 to settle a Complaint against him filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Michigan concerning a violation of this Act. Allegedly, the lawyer sent a solicitation lawyer from his Detroit office directly to a victim’s family within twelve (12) days of a tragic crash. The case apparently was investigated by the Inspector General’s Office for the United States Department of Transportation and resulted in the civil fine imposed on the attorney.
Unfortunately, lawyers oftentimes approach victims in hospitals right after tragedies and in other contexts where it is inappropriate to do so. Yes, clients need to be advised of their rights and yes, clients need legal advice when dealing with tragedies affecting their loved ones. But, clients do not need to be solicited directly by attorneys when they are grieving or dealing with the results of a tragic event. Clients should reach out to attorneys when they are ready to do so and they should not be besieged and bombarded by those seeking to profit from their misfortune.

The statistical evidence regarding automobile accidents continues to demonstrate that drivers who are distracted while driving are dangerous drivers likely to be involved in accidents. Texting while driving, using cell phones while driving and other distractive driving problems continue to cause more and more accidents on our highways and more and more injuries to innocent third parties endangered by such conduct.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2008, there were a total of 34,017 fatal crashes in which 37,261 individuals died. Sixteen percent (16%) of the total fatalities were due to driver distraction. The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of the fatal crashes increased from eight percent (8%) in 2004 to eleven percent (11%) in 2008. This is hardly surprising because more and more drivers are using their cell phones and are texting while driving. Drivers under the age of 20 had the highest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes according to NHTSA sixteen percent (16%). Again, this statistic is hardly surprising because those who seem to use their cell phones the most and/or text while driving are the younger drivers on the road.

Of the 1,630 injury crashes reported throughout the United States, NHTSA estimates that an astounding twenty-one percent (21%) involved distracted driving.

Last fall Toyota announced the largest auto recall in U.S. history after numerous sudden unintended acceleration accidents were reported, many of which resulted in fatalities. Now, Toyota has announced an additional recall of 2.3 million vehicles to correct this same problem. Why the additional recall? It appears that Toyota is doing so because ABC News is soon to report an increase in sudden acceleration cases since the recall last year. According to news reports, there have been 60 new cases of sudden unintended acceleration cases involving Toyota vehicle.
In one tragic occurrence outside of Dallas, Texas, four people were killed when a Toyota sped off the road through a fence and landed upside down in a pond. Even though Toyota has long blamed maladjusted floormats for the unintended acceleration problem, however, in this particular accident, the floormats were found in the car’s trunk where the owners had been advised to put them as part of the earlier recall. Thus, the evidence continues to mount that this problem with Toyotas is not caused by floormats but rather by onboard computer glitches and other engineering issues.
While we are pleased that Toyota has finally recalled its dangerous products, obviously, it is disturbing that Toyota refused to do so earlier for all affected vehicles. From the reported news coverage, had it done so, it may be that an additional 60 cases involving injuries and/or fatalities may have been avoided.

Georgia injury lawyers know that defective and dangerous products of all types are sold in this country. The use of some of the dangerous products have resulted in serious injuries and in some cases death. Several years ago, the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP represented the family of a young boy in a products liability case. The boy died in a house fire caused by a defective humidifier. The types of dangerous products run the gamut.
A new product recall involving baby strollers was reported just this week. After the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission got reports of children’s fingertips being amputated, Graco Children’s Products, Inc. a division of Newell Rubbermaid, recalled a million and a half strollers. The recall applies to Graco’s Passage, Alano and Spree Strollers and Travel Systems, which were sold at various retailers, including Walmart, Target, Toys “R” Us from October 2004 to December 2009. The CPSC has received reports of 5 fingertip amputations and 2 fingertip lacerations.
If you or a loved on have been injured as a result of a dangerous product, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP for a free consultation.

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.