Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Recently, we successfully represented a Georgia firefighter in a workers compensation claim against the county for which he worked. The injury he sustained was a heart attack. Needless to say, the employer denied his claim and took the position that his job had nothing whatsoever to do with the injury to his heart. In researching this injury, we learned that forty percent of on-duty firefighter deaths in the last decade were due to heart attack, according to a recent U.S. Fire Administration report. This is an astounding statistic. The fact of the matter is that firefighters are at great risk of suffering a heart attack because of the extreme stress and exertion under which they work when responding to a call.

In our case, our client got a call about a home on fire. With his adrenalin pumping, he jumped into his truck and headed out to the fire. When he arrived, he donned heavy gear and climbed a hill to access the home. He inhaled smoke which filled the air outside of the home and struggled to pull-start a large fan used in the doorway of the home. Ultimately the fire was extinguished and the EMS unit which had been dispatched as a matter of routine, left the scene to head back to the firehouse. As my client began to put equipment on his truck, he felt shortness of breath and a tightening and burning in his chest. EMS returned to the scene. He was later airlifted to a major hospital where he underwent testing and stent placement. In this case, our client’s heart attack occurred a day later, while undergoing a stress test on a treadmill.

In our opinion, the case turned on the testimony of his cardiologist who we deposed early on in the case. It was the cardiologist’s explanation of the mechanism of injury which made the difference in this case. He testified that most people have atherosclerosis and that there are events that cause the atherosclerotic plaque to rupture. When the plaque ruptures, the endothelium denudes itself and exposes collagen to the bloodstream. Platelets attach to the collagen and recruit a blood clot to form, which causes the obstruction/blockage. He further testified the stress of fighting a fire raises your blood pressure, anxiety associated with it, smoke in the lungs; all of these are precipitating events. He went on to explain how smoke inhalation precipitates a heart attack. “The smoke contains carbon monoxide. It helps increase inflammation. Inflammation causes the plaque to become soft and split. This process can occur over an acute time period of an hour or it can be kind of a smoldering process, as it occurred in this case.”

There is an ever increasing problem for many Georgia workers who become injured and disabled as a result of work injuries. The problem is uninsured employers. We recently got a call about a new workers compensation claim from a worker who was seriously injured as a result of a fall. In fact, this worker had been in the trauma unit of a hospital for several months at the time of this call. He had multiple orthopedic injuries, including leg and arm fractures requiring many surgeries. The worst of his injuries is a serious spinal cord injury. This worker is now paralyzed from the waist down and is permanently and totally disabled. Unfortunately, his employer had no workers’ compensation insurance even though the State of Georgia requires an employer to have such coverage if they have three or more employees. Even though he sustained catastrophic injuries, he could not find a lawyer who would represent him because there was no insurance.

This is a growing problem in Georgia which needs to be remedied. There needs to be a change in Georgia law which gives an injured worker real recourse against an uninsured employer. As the law stands now, an employee can request a hearing before the State Board of Workers Compensation and seek an award of medical bills, weekly disability payments, attorneys’ fees and assessment of various civil penalties for the employer’s failure to have coverage. Even if an injured worker prevails and is awarded these benefits, the chances of collecting from an uninsured business or employer are slim to none.

Ironically the law provides if an employer has three or more employees they are subject to the Workers Compensation Act and must have insurance coverage. Unfortunately for the injured workers, the law also provides if they are subject to the Act, they cannot be sued and enjoy protection from civil liability under the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.

We heard today on a radio broadcast that struck very close to home that four young men from a college in Bluffton, Ohio had been killed, in addition to a bus driver and his wife. Nine others were seriously injured when a charter bus crashed off of an exit ramp off interstate highway I-75 (inside the city limits of Atlanta) back onto the highway. The facts and circumstances surrounding this tragedy are still being investigated, however, this is an all too familiar tragedy that we see here at our law practice. Our thoughts and prayers go to the families in Bluffton, Ohio and to the University. Obviously, this tragedy will have far-reaching implications for many families and loved ones. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the kind of fallout that can result from cases where apparent driver negligence is involved and results in serious injury and wrongful death.
According to the information released thus far, it appears that the bus driver was merging from a HOV lane off of an exit and then crashed through the railing on the overpass such that the bus then fell back onto the interstate highway below. The bus apparently had thirty-five baseball players on it from Bluffton University in Ohio. It is not yet known why the charter bus driver that was carrying this baseball team drove off the interstate ramp and through the overpass railing but the initial reports indicate that it was due to driver error. Thus, if these initial reports are true, we have yet another tragic case where preventable deaths and injuries were caused by the negligent operation of a common carrier operating in interstate commerce.
Of course, no one knows yet much about the qualifications and training of the driver, the maintenance of the bus, and other pertinent information regarding the charter bus company itself. These facts will obviously emerge during the course of the investigation of this incident. Nonetheless, those passengers who were on this bus and their loved ones regrettably will suffer for the rest of their lives from this tragic incident which occurred here, less than two miles from our office. On behalf of our firm and the City of Atlanta we offer our condolences to the families of all those affected by this tragedy.

Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts, the assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner. Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of a product or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc. can be subjects of product liability suits.

Depending on the jurisdiction, product liability claims can be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of fitness. In any jurisdiction, one must prove that the product is defective. There are three types of product defects: (1) design defects, (2) manufacturing defects, and (3) defects in marketing. Design defects are inherent defects. They exist before the product is manufactured. While the product may serve its intended purpose well, it can be unreasonably dangerous to use due to a design defect. Manufacturing defects occur during the construction or production of the item. Generally only a few out of many products of the same type are flawed in this type of case. Defects in marketing deal with improper instructions and/or failures to warn consumers of latent dangers in the product.

Products liability is generally considered to be a “strict liability” wrong. Strict liability wrongs do not depend on the degree of carefulness by the defendant. In other words, a defendant is liable when it is shown that the product is defective. It is of no difference that product manufacturers exercise due care. If there is a defect in the product that causes harm, liability will be assessed.

Just a few weeks ago we blogged about the dangerous nature of police chase cases. See Blog entry entitled High Speed Police Chase Cases: An American Tragedy (2/15/07). Today we wake up with a headline in the Atlanta paper stating that “Two teens are dead and four others injured in a police chase case involving a juvenile that was driving a stolen vehicle.” According to the newspaper report of this incident, police in Clayton County, just outside of Atlanta, pulled over a joyriding juvenile who was in the process of providing a driver’s license to the investigating officer when word came over the police radio that the vehicle the teen was driving was stolen. The teenager took off and the police began to chase. Even though the police had obtained proof of the identify of the juvenile and knew that the only offense in question was a non-violent theft of a motor vehicle, according to the newspaper article, this chase lasted for over four (4) miles. As is so often the case in these dangerous pursuits, the juvenile driver lost control of his vehicle during the chase and crashed head on into several trees off the side of the road. The result: all too predictable. Two were killed and four others seriously injured.

As a result of this tragic situation, we see the same pattern emerge that we have seen in far too many cases. The police decide to chase for a non-violent felony and people are seriously injured and died. Why? Here, because of a stolen vehicle. The question, of course, is whether it was all worth it. We have two young people dead and four others seriously injured with thousands and thousands of dollars in medical expenses expected not to mention the tragedy and devastation sustained by the families of the deceased.

Of course, no one can defend the right of the juvenile suspect in fleeing from the police. The teenager should have cooperated with the police. And yet, past experience indicates that juveniles often flee for a variety of reasons, most predictably fear. Because they are young and inexperienced and afraid of the police, juveniles oftentimes do stupid things. Here, it is not likely that the juveniles would have killed themselves or anyone else had the police not chased them so furiously over four miles. If a chase lasts for any period of time at high speeds, particularly where a juvenile is involved, past experience indicates over and over and over again that there will almost certainly be tragic results.

In our practice we frequently handle cases involving traumatic brain injuries. Traumatic brain injury can occur in a variety of ways. It can occur when there is a rapid acceleration and/or deceleration of the brain such as in an automobile collision whiplash scenario. Traumatic brain injury can also result when the head comes into contact with another object such as in a motorcycle accident, automobile accident, or a blow to the head. This type of injury is sometimes referred to as a “closed head injury.”

Injuries that result from traumatic brain injury can be long-lasting and sometimes difficult to prove, especially when there are no outward physical manifestations of the injury. In fact, a traumatic brain injury can be sustained, with life altering results, yet routine neurological examinations, MRI’s and CT’s will be normal.

We have seen that persons who suffer a traumatic brain injury of any type may experience physical, cognitive, and behavioral problems. Physical symptoms that result from traumatic brain injury include lethergy, fatigue, headache, vision problems, and sleep disturbances. Cognitive problems include the inability to concentrate or pay attention, difficulty with memory, difficulty with planning, and trouble either understanding or producing speech. Behavioral problems resulting from traumatic brain injury include mood swings, irritability, and lack of inhibition. Many of these problems may be mistakenly attributed to depression or other disease processes, when they are, in fact, a result of some sort of traumatic brain injury. This is especially true in cases of mild traumatic brain injury since there may be little evidence of physical injury.

A wrongful death occurs when a person’s death is caused by the wrongful act or negligence of another. A wrongful death is the basis of a lawsuit against the party or parties who cause a wrongful death. The action may be filed on behalf of certain members of the family of the deceased due to the wrongful death. The State of Georgia provides two causes of action in the event of a wrongful death. The first cause of action belongs to the survivors as determined by Georgia’s law of inheritance. This claim is the “wrongful death claim” and is a claim to recover the “value of the life” of the deceased. Among items which are considered in determining the “value of the life” are the deceased’s earning capacity and the intangible benefits that the deceased enjoyed during life. The second cause of action is a cause of action belonging to the Estate of the deceased. This cause of action is one to recover any medical expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful action, funeral expenses, and any pain and suffering endured by the deceased prior to death. This claim is generally brought by the Administrator of the Estate or the Executor of the Will of the deceased.

Wrongful death cases can arise in a number of situations. These include motor vehicle and trucking accidents, accidents caused by defective automobile or other products, accidents caused by reckless conduct of another person, intentional acts such as deliberate murder, actions due to defective drugs or medications, premises liability actions, and deaths which occur as a result of medical malpractice.

Georgia laws now provide a cap on non-economic damages for wrongful deaths occurring as a result of medical malpractice or negligence. Currently, Georgia law caps these damages at $350,000.00.

There are many news reports of one car collisions in which a vehicle goes out of control and strikes an object, such as a median barrier or a tree, killing the occupant. While it is only natural to assume that the driver of the vehicle was somehow at fault, this is not always the case. In our practice, we see cases in which it first appears that the driver was at fault, but further investigation reveals that a defective tire was the cause of the collision.

Defective tires are an ever growing problem in the United States. There is a high level of danger that the belts in steelbelted radial tires can separate if they are subjected to under-inflation, overloading, overheating, or excessive speed. Once the steelbelts separate, the tire will begin to disintegrate and the driver will in most incidents lose control of the vehicle.

Increasingly, there have been warnings about the use of tires which have aged beyond a number of years. The theory is that as a tire ages, it is subjected to natural disintegration which can lead to belt separation. In fact, certain automobile manufacturers now are recommending that tires over a certain age, usually six years old, not be placed on a vehicle. This warning is especially ominous when one considers that a large part of the tire market in the United States consists of the sale of used tires. The purchaser of a used tire generally has no knowledge of when the tire was manufactured or what conditions it has been subjected to prior to the purchase.

It seems that almost every day there is a headline in the local paper or on the TV news concerning horrible injuries suffered by a person attacked by a dog. This firm has successfully handled a large number of liability cases in which our clients were viciously attacked and injured by dogs.
Georgia law provides two ways that an animal owner or handler may be found liable for injuries inflicted by the animal. The first requires that the victim prove: (1) that the animal is dangerous or vicious; (2) that the owner or handler had knowledge of the dog’s viciousness or tendency to attack humans; and, (3) that the owner or handler either carelessly managed the animal or allowed it to go at liberty. The second basis upon which an owner or handler may be found liable for injuries inflicted by an animal requires that the victim prove that the animal; (1) was not at heel or on a leash as required by a local ordinance; and, (2) that the owner or handler either carelessly managed the animal or allowed it to go at liberty. The second ground does not require knowledge of dangerousness or viciousness of the animal. To successfully prove liability under the Georgia statute, the claim can be based on either a violation of a leash law or the owner’s or handler’s knowledge that the dog had the temperament or propensity to bite people. The breed of the dog, even if routinely known to be vicious, cannot be considered in determining liability under the Georgia statute.
Owners and handlers of dogs who have attacked persons typically attempt to raise the defense of assumption of risk to avoid liability for the injuries. They will argue that the victim knew of the dog’s vicious tendencies and approached the dog despite this knowledge, or somehow provoked the attack. This firm has successfully rebutted this defense in numerous cases.

One of the unfortunate occurrences we see in our practice all too often is the regrettable case where our clients believe they have more insurance coverage than they have in actuality and less than what they need. It is not unusual for us to see a client who has excellent liability coverage, for example, $300,000.00 – $500,000.00 in single limit coverage (or better). That same client, however, even though they have $300,000.00 – $500,000.00 in liability coverage protecting the third party in the event they are negligent will often times only carry $25,000.00 per person, $50,000.00 per accident in uninsured motorist coverage. In short, the clients have more coverage for the person that they might hurt than they have for themselves if they are hurt by a third party.
Increasingly, the public needs to understand that uninsured motorist coverage is almost vital. The minimum insurance limits that must be carried by any operator of a motor vehicle in Georgia is $25,000.00 per person, $50,000.00 per accident (referred to as 25/50 coverage). Not only do many people have the absolute minimum limits of coverage that are necessary in order to get their tags to operate a vehicle lawfully, others have no insurance at all. Accordingly, if there is an accident when someone causes serious injury to another, and they only have 25/50 in coverage, what this means is they only have $25,000.00 in coverage to provide financial compensation to any single person they injure, and a maximum of $50,000.00 no matter how many persons are injured. In serious injury cases, $25,000.00 is never enough to even compensate for medical bills, much less lost wages, pain and suffering and/or permanent disability. Because tortfeasors often times have only minimum limits of coverage, it is vital that those who can afford it have uninsured motorist coverage so that they can protect themselves from those situations where the tortfeasor is either uninsured or grossly underinsured.
As amended by the Georgia Legislature in 2001, O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(a)(1) provides that “no automobile liability policy or motor vehicle liability policy” may be issued in this state unless it contains provisions for uninsured motorist coverage which, at the option of the insured, shall be (i) not less than $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per accident, or (ii) equal to the policy’s bodily injury liability insurance coverage, if higher.
We wish to draw the attention of all Georgia citizens to the second provision of this amended statute. Anyone that purchases $300,000.00 – $500,000.00 in liability insurance coverage to protect themselves from being sued in accidents where they are at fault has a legal right to get the exact same amount of coverage to protect themselves in the event someone hits and injures them and they turn out to be either uninsured or underinsured.
If a person is responsible enough to carry $300,000.00 – $500,000.00 in liability insurance limits, they may also be responsible enough not to cause accidents. However, this same responsible person, if they do not protect themselves through the purchase of uninsured motorist coverage, may end up in a situation where they are severely injured by someone who has the minimum limits of insurance ($25,000.00 per person, $50,000.00 per accident) and, if they do not elect to carry the same limits of uninsured motorist coverage, they may be one of those unfortunate cases we see all too often.

Continue reading