Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Bus accidents (or motorcoach accidents) can multiply the loss of life and life-changing injuries. Our Bluffton University baseball team client will never be the same as a result of the bus accident in 2007 that left him permanently injured, and several of his teammates dead.

A bus accident in Utah in January 2008 that left nine dead likewise shows how bus safety has been a neglected issue. Today, the U.S. Department of Transportation finally took the step of ordering a "full review" of bus safety. The government's announcement is below:

U.S. DOT Orders Full Review of Motorcoach Safety

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today ordered a full departmental review of motorcoach safety. A Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan will be created from the review’s findings. The plan will outline the additional steps needed to improve motorcoach safety for the millions of Americans who rely on these vehicles for safe transportation.
“Motorcoaches have been a safe form of transportation in the United States for many years, but even a single crash or accident is unacceptable” said Secretary LaHood. “We will continue our efforts to make them as safe as possible. As Secretary of Transportation, safety is my top priority.”

U.S. DOT agencies participating in the creation of the Action Plan include the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The review will also consider outstanding recommendations to U.S. DOT from the National Transportation Safety Board.

The full departmental review follows a recent NTSB hearing concerning the motorcoach crash in Utah in January 2008 that resulted in nine fatalities. The report is expected to be completed and released by August 2009.

Liability insurance limits for your typical tractor-trailer company, as mandated by federal law, is $750,000.00 in coverage for the protection of innocent members of the motoring public who might be unfortunate enough to be injured by a large tractor-trailer rig. In any serious collision in which the innocent third party victim is hit by a tractor-trailer, it does not take much imagination to realize that $750,000.00 will not go very far, particularly with the increasing cost of healthcare. If someone has numerous orthopaedic injuries and requires surgery, for example, $750,000.00 might not go far enough, particularly if the innocent victim has to lose time from work and/or is permanently disabled.

The current required liability limits for commercial motor carriers was enacted by way of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. These limits have not been increased therefore for almost thirty (30) years. Such limits need to be doubled, if not tripled, at a minimum, in order to protect the innocent members of the motoring public. The chief reason for this is because of the devastating damage usually done by a big tractor-trailer rig when it is involved in a collision. The injuries, damages, lost wages, permanent disfigurement and wrongful deaths one sees in the context of tractor-trailer accidents certainly would seem to militate in favor of increased liability limits.

Now that we have a new Congress and a new President, one can only hope that a law that was enacted in 1980 is amended so that innocent members of the motoring public may receive the protection they need if involved in a collision with a commercial motor carrier. While the increase in premiums might result in increased costs for the trucking business, they have avoided these costs for the past thirty (30) years and it is now time that the liability limits for commercial motor carriers be increased.

In today’s economic times, we hear a lot of discussion about the problems that people are having financially. While many people are emotionally suffering due to rising unemployment and adverse economic conditions, those who suffer perhaps the most during these troubling times are innocent victims in personal injury cases. Our office just settled the case of one young lady, which is a classic example of what we address in this article. Simply stated, this young lady is a living profile in courage.

On the date in question, our client was struck by a vehicle traveling on the wrong side of the road. This could have been a fatality but miraculously the client lived. Even though the client had innumerable orthopaedic injuries and several surgeries to treat the same, and even though her medical expenses were in excess of $150,000.00, the client always remained resolute in the face of these problems. When told that the defendant that caused her injuries had less insurance coverage than the amount of her medical bills, she simply accepted it and recognized that there was little or nothing that she could do about it. We see the prayer “God grant me the courage to change those things that I can change and to accept what I cannot,” and here was a lady who “walked the walk and talked the talk.” She accepted her fate, she dealt with her problems and she was grateful for the gift of life since she had survived what could have been a fatal accident.

Not only did this client experience a very, very painful injury, she had to risk the loss of her job, she had to hang on to her home all while she was going through a failing marriage. Yes it is true that times are tough. Indeed, life itself can be tough. But for someone who is going through troubling times in a slowing economy and a bad marriage, to also have inflicted on them, through no fault of their own and suffer serious personal injuries, is obviously a tremendous burden to bear.

We were very impressed with our client because she always had a good attitude. Yes, she is somewhat angry at what happened to her and yes, she is angry at the person who caused her injuries, but she was accepting of her fate, is grateful that she is alive and is appreciative of the fact that while we could not get her near enough money to compensate her for everything she has endured, at least we got her something via the at fault driver’s insurance. As she stated, there are many people in the world that are far worse off than she is. Yes, this is true. There are many people in the world who are far worse off than she is but there are also many, many people who are much more fortunate than our client. Fortunately, most of us will never have to experience what our client went through, that being the trials and tribulations of an innocent personal injury victim: someone who did nothing wrong, was terribly, terribly injured and then forced to overcome all because of the negligence of a third party.

We salute the courage of all innocent victims of third party negligence who through no fault of their own are subjected to serious and sometimes terrible injuries with sometimes life altering and permanent consequences. These are the heros amongst us which are not known, not seen and usually are not appreciated by the public at large for what they have endured and had to overcome. It is always a pleasure to use one’s professional skills to represent people who are confronted with such problems and we were very pleased that we were able to be of some assistance to this particular client. We were also humbled by the fact that she showed such courage in the face of such adversity. This is a lesson for all of us: Things are not as bad as they may seem. We are all richly blessed to be in a country that does its best through its legal system to address civil wrongs done to others. It may not always achieve justice, but it is the best system in the world for attempting to do so.

Rule No. 12 of 12: The successful cross-examiner understands the risks of cross-examination.

As set forth above, if an attorney asks a question that he does not know the answer to or asks one question too many, he is inviting disaster. Cross-examination is risky, particularly if a witness is hostile and adverse. If leading questions that are designed to make the witness answer with either a yes or no are not asked or if counsel begins sparring with the witness, counsel has lost control of the witness. Sparring with the witness means allowing the witness to speak or to give speeches in front of the jury, which is never a good thing for a client’s case, particularly if the witness has been called by the opponent to do damage to your client’s case. Thus, before standing up to begin cross-examination, counsel has to understand that it is a risky enterprise. If it is not done correctly, more damage can be inflicted than was done on direct examination. If the Twelve Rules of Cross-Examination are not adhered to or the alternative purposes of cross-examination explored well in advance of the exercise, counsel may do more harm than good in attempting to cross-examine any witness. In short, experienced trial counsel know not to ask one question too many and to sit down when they are ahead after they have scored what points can be scored on cross-examination, if any. By preparing cross-examination well in advance of trial and by following the rules set forth above, the truth will emerge and justice achieved.

Over the years our Georgia medical malpractice lawyers have been involved in medical negligence lawsuits involving missing or improperly documented medical records. In an effort to avoid such problems the federal government is pressuring medical professionals and facilities to adopt electronic record keeping. While this has the potential to eliminate life threatening record keeping errors, there are also potential dangers associated with this system.

Electronic medical records allow healthcare professionals to easily document medical findings. With just a few keystrokes, a physician or PA can describe a full medical exam using predesigned templates. However, using boilerplate templates for every patient can have serious shortfalls. Reviewing pages of repetitive documentation can be time consuming and lead to increased chances of missing important findings. Overlooking important findings in records has in our experience been a leading cause of harm to patients.

The use of templates can also result in the wrong template being used for a particular condition or patient. It has been reported that a neurologist who had just converted to electronic medical records discovered that the template documented a finding of orientation to time, place, and person for a one year old. Children this young cannot be tested in this manner.

Other advantages of electronic medical records include the ability to catch medication errors, check for adverse drug interactions, and track test results and schedule follow ups. One surgeon recently demonstrated his practices electronic record system to one of our attorneys. He extolled the ability to have all patient records and test results available at the practices many offices and the ability to have the records accessible on his lap top computer so he could prepare for the next days surgeries from his home.

Electronic medical records can increase the safety of patients and make health care more efficient. However, care should be taken to ensure that all users are properly trained.

Our Atlanta truck accident lawyers see many instances in which trucking companies simply ignore or pay little attention to safety rules and regulations designed to protect the motoring public. During the past 15 years, the three-strikes-you're-out rule has become a key aspect of the U.S. criminal justice system. The policy generally holds that repeat offenders are given mandatory life sentences when convicted of committing particularly egregious crimes like kidnapping and aggravated assault.

This concept has been adapted and adopted by other government units and applied to all sorts of regulatory requirements and enforcement actions, including by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Now, the FMCSA has thrown out its three-strikes policy for assessing maximum fines for motor carriers found to have committed a pattern of violations of "critical or acute" safety rules and gone to a two strikes rule. This basically tells trucking companies and drivers that on the second strike a large fine will follow. The change went into effect April 1.

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which created the FMCSA, mandated the agency assess maximum civil penalties on anyone who committed a "pattern of violations" of important safety regulations, or to have "previously committed the same or a related violation" of critical regulations.

Five years later, the agency clarified its enforcement policy by adopting a three-strikes rule that defined both the "pattern of violations," and "previously committed the same or related violation," as three cases of violations occurring within the previous six years.

Within a year or two of adopting that policy, the agency began coming under fire from members of Congress and others who contended its enforcement efforts were too weak. Congress ordered the Government Accountability Office to examine the agency's enforcement practices.

In 2007, the GAO issued a report that said the FMCSA three-strikes policy had failed to assess maximum penalties against serious safety-rules violators and hadn't achieved the 1999 law's intent that maximum penalties be imposed when there had been two distinct patterns of violations or repeat violations.

Now, with a new administration in charge, the agency has revised its policy and issued a two-strikes rule. When the agency discovers two or more critical and/or acute violations in each of three or more different regulatory parts it can assess maximum fines.

A rogue carrier will be subject to the maximum fines when the pattern of critical or acute violations is discovered after the operator has had "previous contact" with the FMCSA, a state motor carrier safety enforcement agency, or other FMCSA-designated representative acting on behalf of FMCSA.

This new policy should lead to stricter enforcement of safety regulations, encourage lax companies to adopt better safety standards, and hopefully reduce the rate of injuries and deaths caused by unsafe trucks and unsafe driving practices.

Rule No. 11 of 12: The successful cross-examiner has the ability to make what appears to be complex become simple.

In order to adhere to this rule, experienced trial counsel knows that they must use language that layman can understand. Using lawyerly language or expansive vocabulary is not the way to go. Counsel must boil down the issues to as few as are possible so that the jury can understand what the issues are and follow the testimony and the relevance of the examination. If counsel becomes too technical and fails to make sure that the testimony being offered can be understood by the average juror then cross-examination will be ineffective. Thus, it is important that trial attorneys use language that everyday people understand and that they use language in such a way as to communicate effectively and directly. If this is done, there is no reason an attorney cannot be a successful cross-examiner.

As Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP representing victims of trucking accidents, automobile accidents, and workers compensation accidents we often see our clients who cannot work because of serious injuries, fall behind in paying their bills. When that happens they often start getting calls from collection agencies and even lawyers attempting to collect. Sometimes these collections people cross the line and violate the law.

This week I read an article about a man with a disabling brain injury and no money who told a debt collection lawyers that the time for seeking payment had expired and that the suit that had previously been filed to collect the debt had been dismissed. Notwithstanding that conversation, the law firm sued him anyway, trying to collect a credit card debt on behalf of the creditor. He hired a lawyer, got the collections suit dismissed and then sued the collections law firm for violating debt collections laws. A jury awarded him $311,000.00!

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, often referred to as the "FDCPA", was passed by Congress in 1977 in response to abusive conduct by collection agencies, and concern that the abuses were causing an increase in the filings of personal bankruptcies. The purpose of the Act is to provide guidelines for collection agencies which are seeking to collect legitimate debts, while providing protections and remedies for debtors. The FDCPA applies to personal, family, and household debts, including debts associated with the purchase of a car, for medical care, for retail financing, for first and second mortgages, and for money owed on credit card accounts. Please note that most states have similar laws, which typically proscribe the same types of misconduct by debt collectors and which may cover a broader range of debts than the federal law.

The Act regulates the conduct of debt collectors: any person who regularly collects debts owed to others. This definition includes lawyers who perform debt collection services on a regular basis. Even where money is legitimately owed, a debt collector's conduct is restricted by this law. In-house collection agents are not ordinarily covered by the Act. For example, if you have a store credit card, and the store's own collection department contacts you, the FDCPA does not apply. However if the same store uses an outside collection agency to contact you in relation to that same debt, the outside agency's conduct is restricted by the FDCPA. Similarly, if the same store uses an in-house collection agent, but suggests to you that the collection is being performed by a third party, the FDCPA may apply to them as a result of that representation. Please note that there may be other laws in your state which restrict the conduct of in-house collection agents.

In order to prove violations of collections laws a consumer MUST document all communication with the collector. If you do not have a way to record telephone calls coming into your home - get one and don’t erase anything on it.

Rule No. 10 of 12: The successful cross-examiner knows how to force an evasive witness to give a responsive answer.

When a hostile or evasive witness refuses to answer a question, counsel must be firm and persistent in getting the answer desired. The first thing to do is to repeat the question. If the witness continues to evade, ask the witness what it is about the question that he or she does not understand. If necessary, have the court reporter read the question back to the witness. Finally, if all else fails, ask the Court to admonish and instruct the witness to answer the question.

Counsel must control the witness rather than allowing the witness to use counsel to aid his or her cause. Controlling a witness means insisting on an answer and getting the answer. If a witness has testimony in a deposition that is inconsistent with their prior testimony and they do not want to admit to it, they need to be confronted directly and then impeached. If the witness says that the car was blue and they take the stand and say the car is red, they must be shown their prior deposition testimony, they must be asked if they previously testified under oath to a different color, they must be asked to review their deposition, they must be shown their deposition and they must be repeatedly and persistently questioned until they admit the prior inconsistent testimony. Good trial lawyers can get answers to their questions if they are persistent.

Rule No. 10 of 12: The successful cross-examiner knows how to force an evasive witness to give a responsive answer.

When a hostile or evasive witness refuses to answer a question, counsel must be firm and persistent in getting the answer desired. The first thing to do is to repeat the question. If the witness continues to evade, ask the witness what it is about the question that he or she does not understand. If necessary, have the court reporter read the question back to the witness. Finally, if all else fails, ask the Court to admonish and instruct the witness to answer the question.

Counsel must control the witness rather than allowing the witness to use counsel to aid his or her cause. Controlling a witness means insisting on an answer and getting the answer. If a witness has testimony in a deposition that is inconsistent with their prior testimony and they do not want to admit to it, they need to be confronted directly and then impeached. If the witness says that the car was blue and they take the stand and say the car is red, they must be shown their prior deposition testimony, they must be asked if they previously testified under oath to a different color, they must be asked to review their deposition, they must be shown their deposition and they must be repeatedly and persistently questioned until they admit the prior inconsistent testimony. Good trial lawyers can get answers to their questions if they are persistent.

Rule No. 10 of 12: The successful cross-examiner knows how to force an evasive witness to give a responsive answer.

When a hostile or evasive witness refuses to answer a question, counsel must be firm and persistent in getting the answer desired. The first thing to do is to repeat the question. If the witness continues to evade, ask the witness what it is about the question that he or she does not understand. If necessary, have the court reporter read the question back to the witness. Finally, if all else fails, ask the Court to admonish and instruct the witness to answer the question.

Counsel must control the witness rather than allowing the witness to use counsel to aid his or her cause. Controlling a witness means insisting on an answer and getting the answer. If a witness has testimony in a deposition that is inconsistent with their prior testimony and they do not want to admit to it, they need to be confronted directly and then impeached. If the witness says that the car was blue and they take the stand and say the car is red, they must be shown their prior deposition testimony, they must be asked if they previously testified under oath to a different color, they must be asked to review their deposition, they must be shown their deposition and they must be repeatedly and persistently questioned until they admit the prior inconsistent testimony. Good trial lawyers can get answers to their questions if they are persistent.

Rule No. 10 of 12: The successful cross-examiner knows how to force an evasive witness to give a responsive answer.

When a hostile or evasive witness refuses to answer a question, counsel must be firm and persistent in getting the answer desired. The first thing to do is to repeat the question. If the witness continues to evade, ask the witness what it is about the question that he or she does not understand. If necessary, have the court reporter read the question back to the witness. Finally, if all else fails, ask the Court to admonish and instruct the witness to answer the question.

Counsel must control the witness rather than allowing the witness to use counsel to aid his or her cause. Controlling a witness means insisting on an answer and getting the answer. If a witness has testimony in a deposition that is inconsistent with their prior testimony and they do not want to admit to it, they need to be confronted directly and then impeached. If the witness says that the car was blue and they take the stand and say the car is red, they must be shown their prior deposition testimony, they must be asked if they previously testified under oath to a different color, they must be asked to review their deposition, they must be shown their deposition and they must be repeatedly and persistently questioned until they admit the prior inconsistent testimony. Good trial lawyers can get answer to their questions if they are persistent.

Rule No. 10 of 12: The successful cross-examiner knows how to force an evasive witness to give a responsive answer.

When a hostile or evasive witness refuses to answer a question, counsel must be firm and persistent in getting the answer desired. The first thing to do is to repeat the question. If the witness continues to evade, ask the witness what it is about the question that he or she does not understand. If necessary, have the court reporter read the question back to the witness. Finally, if all else fails, ask the Court to admonish and instruct the witness to answer the question.

Counsel must control the witness rather than allowing the witness to use counsel to aid his or her cause. Controlling a witness means insisting on an answer and getting the answer. If a witness has testimony in a deposition that is inconsistent with their prior testimony and they do not want to admit to it, they need to be confronted directly and then impeached. If the witness says that the car was blue and they take the stand and say the car is red, they must be shown their prior deposition testimony, they must be asked if they previously testified under oath to a different color, they must be asked to review their deposition, they must be shown their deposition and they must be repeatedly and persistently questioned until they admit the prior inconsistent testimony. Good trial lawyers can get answers to their questions if they are persistent.

Truck drivers operating on the roads of Georgia and across the nation are subject to hours of service restrictions. These restrict the number of hours a driver may operate a truck in a certain time frame. It has been shown that fatigued drivers are a major contributing factor to truck crashes.

Legislation enacted in the last Congress and pushed by the Bush administration granted certain carriers exemptions from the restrictions. Now, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center found trucking carriers that received hours of service regulations exemptions reported higher crash rates than those that didn't obtain waivers from the rules.

The legislation exempted agricultural carriers from the hours of service regulations if they operated only within a 100-mile radius from their central base of operation. It also exempted utility service vehicle drivers from all hours-of-service regulations.

The Volpe study found that agricultural carrier operating exclusively within a 100-mile radius had a 19% higher crash rate than agricultural carriers operating outside a 100-mile radius between 2005 and 2007, while utility service motor carrier crash rates jumped by 40% during the same period.

These results show that safety is clearly compromised by these exemptions. Safety groups have called for their repeal in the upcoming Transportation Reauthorization Act.

The study also showed that in 2007 agricultural carriers as a whole had higher violation and out of service rates than the rest of the trucking industry in the categories of unsafe driver, driver fitness, vehicle maintenance, and improper loading - with a 32% overall average increase.

Agricultural carriers operating solely within a 100-mile radius had higher violations and out of service rates than those operating outside of a 100-mile radius in the categories of unsafe driving, driver fitness, vehicle maintenance, and improper loading, the Volpe study reported, with the overall average increase in the case at 24 percent

Rule No. 9 of 12: The successful cross-examiner has a good beginning and good ending to the cross-examination of the witness.

If counsel is prepared through proper investigation and discovery, counsel can start off strong and end strong. A good beginning gets the cross-examination rolling and prepared ending gets counsel down if he needs to get down without being too badly damaged by the opponent’s witness. Again, this all goes back to another rule, which is to prepare cross-examination in advance of trial.

When one looks over their file materials, prior depositions, statements and other information in the file, one should be able to come up with an outline that starts off with a favorable point to be made for the client’s case and after discussing other pertinent matters within the witness’s purview, ends with another favorable point also helpful to the client’s case. It’s always detrimental if cross-examination ends on a low note where a blow is struck and the cross-examination is unsuccessful and the client’s case hurt. To avoid this, a good beginning and a good ending prepared in advance of trial will assist counsel in adhering to this rule.

Bus accidents were the subject of action taken by The National Transportation Safety Board this week. The NTSB is the federal agency charged with investigating major transportation accidents. On Tuesday, it strongly criticized regulators at the Department of Transportation for lax oversight of the commercial bus industry.

The NTSB voted to cite the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to implement recommendations that could lead to new safety equipment on buses, including seatbelts and stronger roofs and windows. They have been urging NHTSA to enact their recommendations since 1999.

The vote came after investigators for the NTSB disclosed findings from an investigationof a Jan. 6, 2008, rollover bus crash in Utah that killed nine passengers and injured 43. It was one of a string of deadly commercial bus accidents involving passenger ejections over the past two years. Included was the Bluffton University bus crash here in Atlanta. Our lawyers represented one of the seriously injured students in that crash.

The NTSB identified driver fatigue as the primary cause of the Utah crash, but stated that NHTSA's delay in developing standards to protect people on buses contributed to the severity of the crash.

Board members expressed frustration at the delay of NHTSA in developing and enacting safety measures for buses.

In the NTSB report, investigators revealed details about the condition of the 71-year-old driver in the Utah crash. They concluded that he was fatigued on the night of the accident, causing him to speed and lose control of the bus, which was moving between 88 and 92 miles per hour when it crashed. In the days before the accident, the driver reported suffering from a head cold, may have experienced altitude sickness and was losing sleep nightly, possibly as a result of sleep apnea, the investigators said.

The NTSB also had harsh words for the medical oversight by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, another agency within the transportation department. That agency is responsible for drivers' medical certifications. Board members complained that the agency had yet to act on medical recommendations issued by an outside advisory board, including a suggestion on sleep apnea, a condition where a sleeper stops breathing.

Rule No. 8 of 12: The successful cross-examiner listens carefully to what the witness says in response to his questions on cross-examination.

As set forth above, counsel should know what a witness will say in response to each question posed. No question should be asked that the answer is not known in advance. Nonetheless, sometimes, an answer more favorable than anticipated may be given by the witness or impeaching or contradicting of yet another witness. By listening closely to what the witness says on cross-examination, counsel can make sure that they take advantage of any “openings” provided by the testimony. It may be that one answer was anticipated but yet a better answer provided which creates an opening for an entire new line of examination. In short, as set forth in our entry above, if counsel is to be a good cross-examiner, counsel must learn to listen, not only to the witness’s direct testimony, but also to responses to the cross-examination underway. Many times, opportunities can be lost if counsel is too focused on their pre-prepared outline and is not listening closely to what the witness is actually saying from the witness stand.

In addition to representing victims of trucking accidents and automobile accidents, the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP also represent victims of nursing home abuse and nursing home neglect. including patients who have sustained decubitus ulcers (bed sores), falls and brutality in nursing homes. Consequently we have seen, first-hand, how victims of nursing home abuse or neglect suffer when those facilities don’t adequately take care of the people for which they are paid to care. It has been our experience that the owners of nursing homes under-staff these facilities and under pay many of the employees who actually do the hard work of caring for elderly and disabled people.

This week I read about the efforts of a Republican state representative in Tennessee who had the gall to propose to the Tennessee House of Representatives that they pass legislation placing caps on damages in lawsuits against nursing homes. Fortunately for the citizens of Tennessee, the proposal failed in a House subcommittee. What a politician will not do to try to get votes or protect the interest of big business never fails to surprise us. One can hardly imagine what the state of care would be for elderly and disabled people in nursing homes if it we not for the fear of a large damage award to keep them in line. In the last few month, the citizens of this country have all witnessed what happens when unregulated big business runs wild with no regulation or oversight. The old saying, “It’s always all about the money” is a true statement. The only way to hold business accountable for their negligence is for there to be financial consequences for their conduct.

P.S. The proposal was denounced as the “Kill Old People Cheap Act” by a Democrat representative who voted against the bill!

As Georgia injury lawyers we handle all types of automobile accident and trucking accident cases involving serious injury and wrongful death. This week I read about an unusual collision in Carrollton involving an ambulance and a truck. According to the Georgia State Patrol, a woman was driving a non-emergency ambulance when she swerved onto the shoulder, overcorrected, crossed the center line and veered into oncoming traffic where she hit a truck head-on. The ambulance driver, in critical condition, was airlifted to Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta after Monday's accident. Fortunately, there were no patients in the ambulance. The condition of the man driving the truck was not disclosed.

Rule No. 7 of 12: The successful cross-examiner listens to the witness’s direct testimony.

When a witness is called by the other side to testify against one’s client, one must be very careful to listen to that witness. Even if counsel has had the benefit of taking the deposition of the witness and has a beautiful outline to be used for anticipated cross of the witness, counsel must nonetheless listen very closely to the actual testimony given before the jury. It may be that the witness changes their testimony or offers less damaging testimony than was anticipated. It would make little or no sense to adhere to a pre-prepared outline script in such a situation. Counsel must be willing to adapt a proposed cross-examination outlined for any witness. The best way to do this is to listen carefully to what the witness is saying.

During cross-examination, counsel must keep his notes to a minimum because taking notes can be distracting and can interfere with listening to what the witness is saying. If proper investigation and discovery has been done, counsel should know what the witness will say in any event, but there have been many cases where witnesses do slightly alter their testimony, thus causing for a change in the cross-examination of that witness. Listening is the key to this rule.

Rule No. 6 of 12: The successful cross-examiner stays calm and collected whatever happens.

During the testimony of a witness, particularly where the witness is providing very damaging testimony, counsel cannot flinch or otherwise demonstrate through body language that his client’s case has been hurt. Counsel must always stay calm and collected because body language many times can betray counsel’s representation of their client.

When a witness is being evasive or refuses to answer questions or asks counsel questions from the witness stand, counsel must not argue with the witness or answer any of their questions, but rather must stay calm and collected and stay in control of the witness. As long as counsel consistently reflects a professional demeanor, this communicates to the jury confidence in one’s cause.

The Georgia injury lawyers have written before that with the growing popularity of ATV’s or All-Terrain Vehicles, serious injury and death cases are on the increase in Georgia, especially among children. Yesterday, we read about a 12-year-old Alto, Georgia girl who was killed last Friday night about 8:30 p.m. in an accident involving an all-terrain vehicle in Banks County. According to the Georgia State Patrol the girl was driving the vehicle when it overturned on private property. A 15-year-old passenger, who was not identified, was injured and taken to Northeast Georgia Medical Center. Unfortunately Georgia is one of only five states with no ATV safety legislation. Between 1982 and 2003 there were 177 fatalities involving ATV’s. Of the 177 deaths, one third were children under 16. In 2004, there were 12 fatalities involving ATV, 50% of which were children under 17.
Almost all ATV accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries occur while violating one or more of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Rules of ATV Operation”. These rules are as follows:
A. Children under sixteen should not ride adult-sized ATV (90 + cc’s).
B. Take a hands-on safety course.
C. Always wear a helmet while on an ATV.
D. Never drive an ATV on paved roads.
E. Never drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
F. Never drive an ATV with a passenger, and never ride as a passenger.
Despite these common sense rules, we continue to see children operating ATV’s and worse yet, operating them with passengers. Every new ATV that has come from the factory in recent years has a decal that warns the driver not to ride passengers. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured on an ATV, call the ATV injury lawyers at Finch McCranie LLP at 1 (800) 228-9159.

Rule No. 5 of 12: The successful cross-examiner never asks an open-ended question such as “why” unless it does not care what the answer is.

In discussing rule 4 above, we gave a good example of why you do not ask open-ended questions. If you ask a witness “why?” they will tell you. In other words, they will give a speech, which usually will hurt your client. If you are cross-examining a witness, by definition, that means that the witness has been called by the other side to offer testimony against your client. If you ask them an open-ended question, you are giving them a chance to speak. Thus, you should usually ask questions that ask for a yes or a no response. You should not even ask those questions unless you know what the answer is going to be.

In some circumstances, you really do not care what the answer is. For example, if a witness has been paid by a magazine for their story and they are alleging that a celebrity defendant has allegedly committed a sexual assault against their friend, you can ask them all kinds of questions about, “Isn’t it true that they were paid for their testimony?” etc. Of course, they will deny it, but if you have evidence that they hired an agent, were paid by the magazine, etc., then it does not really matter what they say because they will be sufficiently impeached before the jury in any event. Always ask leading questions that suggest the answer you want. Avoid open ended questions such as why or how and you will follow this rule.

We have previously written about dangerous toys containing magnets which can be swallowed by small children. Last week, toy manufacturer Mega Brands America Inc. consented to pay a $1.1 million civil penalty for failing to promptly report promptly dangerous magnetic building sets which it manufactured. The sets have been blamed in the death of a child.

As we reported, tiny magnets can fall out of toys and be swallowed or inhaled by children. If more than one magnet is swallowed, they can attach to each other and cause intestinal perforation, infection or blockage.

In December 2005 Mega Brands, formerly Rose Art Industries Inc., reported the death of a 22-month-old child to the CPSC. He died when he swallowed magnets from a Magnetix set, which attached to each other in his small intestine and created a fatal blockage.

The company failed to report a pattern of incidents involving its imported Magnetix toys as required by law. Instead it blamed the child by alleging rough play for detached magnets that caused the death. According to CPSC, at that time, Rose Art was aware of more than 1,100 reports of magnets falling out of the toys and at least one report of a child injured after ingesting one of the Magnetix magnets.

Magnetix building toys were recalled in March 2006 and this recall was expanded in April 2007. Rose Art was acquired by Mega Bloks Inc. in July 2005. The company, which changed its name to Mega Brands in June 2006, says it was unaware of the defects at the time of the acquisition.

Rule No. 4 of 12: The successful cross-examiner never asks a question unless he knows what the answer will be or doesn’t care what it is.

Unless counsel is fully prepared, has fully investigated the case and has conducted necessary discovery, this rule is difficult to follow. On the other hand, if counsel knows everything about the case then there is no reason why this rule cannot be followed and, in fact, it should be followed in all cases. Otherwise, disaster can strike.

There is an old story that illustrates the rule. A witness apparently in the 1800's witnessed a fight between two men. It was dark outside and the witness had a poor angle on the fight. (The defendant was being tried for biting a man’s ear off and the witness admitted that he did not see the defendant bite the man’s ear off.) Counsel on cross-examination successfully was able to show that the witness could not see the alleged assault and battery for which the defendant was being tried. Rather than sitting down after establishing this on cross-examination, counsel asked one question too many. “So if you didn’t see him bite it off, how do you know he bit the ear off?” The witness answered: “Because I saw him spit it out.”

If you know what the answer is to every question, you are safe to ask the question, but if you do not know the answer you should not be asking the question. By asking questions which will give safe answers not detrimental to your case, you are better off than proceeding blindly into areas that are not safe or known. question, you are safe to ask the question, but if you do not know the answer you should not be asking the question. By asking questions which will give safe answers not detrimental to your case, you are better off than proceeding blindly into areas that are not safe or known.

Rule No. 3 of 12: The successful cross-examiner avoids the appearance of pettiness, nit-picking or unfairness to the witness.

Even though we practice in an adversarial system, there is no necessity to be adversarial with the cross-examination of each and every witness. Righteous indignation needs to be saved for appropriate occasions where the witness is clearly lying or needs to be exposed for some form of aggravated misconduct. Counsel must reserve outrage and indignation for the proper case.

If trial counsel is unfair to any witness or is otherwise petty, the jury may subliminally hold this against counsel and by definition counsel’s client. Thus, the third rule of successful cross-examination is to be fair but firm in the cross-examination of all witnesses and where appropriate, adversarial, provided the case justifies it.

Raptiva, a drug manufactured by Roche HoldingAG's Genentech Inc. and marketed for the treatment of psoriasis has been linked to a rare but often fatal brain disorder. As a result of these findings, Genentech has issued a voluntary recall of the drug.

Genentech previously disclosed that three cases of the disorder, called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, had turned up in patients taking Raptiva since October of last year. Two of these cases were fatal. A fourth patient died of unknown cause after developing neurologic symptoms. All had been taking the drug for more than three years.

Last month, Genentech updated the Raptiva label to reflect the increased risk associated with the drug. But the company said it ultimately determined that the risk of the disorder outweighs the benefits of the drug.

A spokeswoman for Genentech added that there isn't any way to mitigate the risk, a factor in the decision to pull it from the market. Raptiva is the first drug Genentech has withdrawn for safety reasons.

Genentech reported Raptiva sales of $108 million in 2008. The company estimates that about 2,000 patients in the U.S. are currently taking the drug.

Since it was approved by the FDA in 2003, the company says 46,000 people world-wide have taken Raptiva. The drug is used with a once-weekly injection and works by suppressing T-cells in the immune system.

The company advised doctors not to write any new prescriptions for the drug. But it said doctors should work with patients currently taking the medicine to find alternative treatments. Because abruptly cutting off treatment could make psoriasis worse, the company urged patients to see their doctors before they stop taking the drug. The company said Raptiva would continue to be available to current patients until June 8.

If you are someone you know is currently taking this medication please consult with your physician immediately.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented, and continue to represent, victims of day care child abuse. The statistics on physical child abuse are alarming. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of children are physically abused each year by a parent or close relative; however, abusers include daycare workers, healthcare providers, mental healthcare workers and others who care for children on a daily basis. We currently represent a young victim who was abused while a patient in the psychiatric ward of a Georgia hospital and a young victim of a sexual assault that occurred while a patient in an Atlanta brain injury rehabilitation facility. Just last week the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on a case where children were abused by a staff member at a Kennesaw day care center. According to the article, an investigation revealed that other employees of the day care center knew the abuse was happening! Although physical abuse is perhaps the most common form of abuse, it is not the only kind of child abuse. Many children are victims of neglect, or sexual abuse, or emotional abuse. In 2005, 899,000 children in the U.S. were victims of child abuse, neglect and maltreatment: 90% suffered neglect, 3.6 suffered medical neglect, 13% were physically abused, 4% were sexually abused and 1% were psychologically mistreated. Children who have been abused may display:

a poor self image
sexual acting out
inability to trust or love others
aggressive, disruptive, and sometimes illegal behavior
anger and rage
self destructive or self abusive behavior, suicidal thoughts
passive or withdrawn behavior
fear of entering into new relationships or activities
anxiety and fears
school problems or failure
feelings of sadness or other symptoms of depression
flashbacks, nightmares
drug and alcohol abuse

If you discover that your loved one or someone that you know has been abused at a day care center, hospital or by any professional who is charged with the responsibility of taking care of such person, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP. We have been holding abusers responsible and accountable for their conduct for many years.

Many Georgia residents may be driving General Motors cars which have a dangerous propensity to ignite in flames. General Motors and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced yesterday that the possibility of engine fires has prompted General Motors to recall nearly 1.5 million passenger sedans manufactured between 1997 and 2003.
The recall covers certain mid- and full-size passenger sedans under GM's Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac brands.

The problem involves a potential for oil to leak on the exhaust manifold during hard braking. When a car operates under normal conditions, the manifold can get very hot. Oil that runs below the manifold's heat shield can ignite and spread to plastic channels that hold spark plug wires.

The affected vehicles have naturally aspirated 3.8 liter V6 engines. These engines use atmospheric pressure rather than a mechanical blower to bring in air for combustion.
General Motors has proposed a change in the bracket that holds spark plug wires, which will be done free of charge, as a solution to the problem. Owners and dealers affected by the recall will be notified by letter next month with details.

The vehicles involved are:• 1997-2003 Buick Regals.• 1998-2003 Chevrolet Luminas, Monte Carlos and Impalas.• 1998-1999 Oldsmobile Intrigues.• 1997-2003 Pontiac Grand Prix.
If you are driving one of vehicles you should contact a GM dealer for a repair even if you do not receive a notice in the mail.

Continue reading "GM Recalls Dangerous Cars" »

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many victims of defective products which have caused serious injury and sometimes death. Recently, there was a recall on a device meant to save lives, a defibrillator. Each year 250,000 to 450,000 Americans suffer a sudden heart stoppage or cardiac arrest due to a rhythm disturbance or silent coronary artery disease, according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. About 95 percent of those people die. A defibrillator delivers a shock which is meant to restore a person’s regular heart rhythm. Zoll Medical Corp has issued an alert because some of its AED Plus external defibrillators, used in public settings such as airports, have defective batteries and software, leading to failures to deliver a shock and two patient deaths. On February 2009, Zoll began asking customers to download new software that will help detect a potential defective battery. In addition to airports, the potentially defective defibrillators may be located in health clubs and schools. If you know of one of these products manufactured by Zoll, you should advise the owner that the manufacturer is asking customers to download free software from its website which will diagnose whether the batteries need replacement.

Rule No. 2 of 12: The successful cross-examiner always has a purpose for each question that is asked or not asked.

When preparing a cross-examination of any particular witness, counsel has to consider what they want to say about the witness in closing argument. Sometimes, if a witness does not hurt your client’s case, the best cross-examination is to ask no questions at all. The general rule is “no harm no foul,” therefore, if a witness is called against your client and ends up testifying in a manner that really does not hurt them in any way, the best cross-examination may be one that asks no questions whatsoever. However, if questions are asked, they have to be asked in such a way as to do no harm to one’s case.

Sometimes, the purpose of the cross-examination may be to conceal the fact that you do not really have anything to attack the witness on. In other situations as addressed above, it may be possible to successfully impeach the witness through prior inconsistent statements. Either way, as part of the preparation by counsel, in advance of trial, counsel has to consider each question being considered for the witness and has to satisfy him/herself that the question will achieve a goal and that the goal is worth pursuing with respect to the cross-examination of that witness. Again, the successful cross-examiner always have a purpose for each question that is asked or not asked.

The news media in Georgia frequently reports on tragic accidents in which young children are killed by cars traveling in reverse. Many times these accidents occur when a parent is backing out of a driveway or garage.

According to data from a recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shifting into reverse may be more dangerous than previously thought. According to the first study conducted on the issue, 221 people were killed by vehicles backing up in 2007. That is more than 4 deaths per week. In the same period, about 14,000 people were injured in backup accidents.

The United States Congress passed legislation last year to attempt to address the issue. The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act, is named for a 2-year-old boy who was accidentally backed over and killed by his father on Long Island, New York. It was this legislation that prompted the new study.

The study found that backover accidents accounted for 19 percent of all nontraffic crash fatalities. It was the leading cause of death among nonoccupants involved in nontraffic crashes. Nontraffic accidents are those that occur in vehicles not on a public road, such as in driveways, parking lots and private roads.

The study was conducted with the intent of establishing guidelines for rearview visibility in cars, S.U.V.’s and minivans. Those rules for automakers from the Transportation Department are likely to be two years away. In the meantime, safety advocacy groups continue to push manufacturers and parents to install systems to mitigate the problem. Most solutions involve audible warnings or rearview cameras.

Several automakers already offer rearview cameras as an option, which show what is directly behind a car, displayed either on a dashboard navigation screen or on an LCD embedded in a rearview mirror. Aftermarket cameras and displays that can be installed by owners or dealerships are also available.

In our prior four (4) entries, concerning the art of cross-examination, we have discussed the objectives of cross-examination and have suggested that there are four (4) alternative purposes for successful cross-examination that should be considered by trial counsel. In this article, we are going to address techniques involved in successful cross-examination. Any experienced trial counsel will recognize these rules as being fundamental to a truly successful cross-examination of any material witness.

Rule No. 1 of 12: The successful cross-examination is well prepared in advance of the exercise.

When you shoot from the hip during a trial, you generally shoot yourself in the foot. Depositions, witness statements, exhibits and everything in the file must be carefully considered and reviewed in advance of trial to find material for suitable cross-examination. As an example, trial counsel should look for opportunities to get two witnesses for the opposing side to contradict one another. Trial counsel must review every single thing in the file to see what objectives can be met when considering the four (4) alternative purposes of cross-examination. This requires extreme attention to detail and meticulous preparation in advance of trial. Even the nature of the questioning, as we shall see in a later discussion of the discipline required for this art is very important because preparation in advance of trial allows counsel to craft questions carefully, usually in a leading manner, which will insure that counsel gets the answers they seek while at the same time insuring against eliciting answers they do not seek.

The Georgia Injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented thousands of victims involved in automobile accidents and trucking/tractor trailer accidents. Regretfully many have resulted in serious, life changing injuries and some have resulted in death. In some of these cases, the injuries could have been lessened had the victim been wearing a seatbelt.

For years, Georgia law has required occupants of passenger cars to wear seatbelts; however, pickup trucks have been exempt. Recently, a bid to require adults in pickup trucks to buckle their seat belts was narrowly defeated by a Georgia House panel, defying supporters of stronger safety standards that are in effect in most of the nation.

Georgia already requires minors to wear seat belts and adults to wear them except in pickup trucks. Indiana law was similar to Georgia law on this subject; however, in 2007 the legislature passed a law which now requires adults to buckle up in pickup trucks. New Hampshire has no seat belt requirements whatsoever for adults.

Our Georgia automobile accident attorneys often review crashes involving very small cars, sometimes referred to as “micro cars.” We have frequently noticed that there seems to be a correlation between the severity of injuries suffered in car accidents and the size of the vehicles involved. Now, a study by the Insurance for Highway Safety has confirmed our observations.
In crash tests released this week, the Institute found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart "fortwo," Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

Sales of small cars soared when gas prices topped $4 per gallon last year but have fallen off as the costs of gasoline has returned to about $2 a gallon and the economic downturn has slowed car sales. The small cars are affordable — prices of the three cars tested range from about $12,000 to $18,000 — and typically achieve 30 miles per gallon or more.

While these micro cars do provide excellent gas mileage and are less expensive than larger models, The Insurance Institute study points out that there is a definite trade-off in safety.
The tests involved head-on crashes between the Smart car and a 2009 Mercedes C Class, the Fit and a 2009 Honda Accord and the Yaris and the 2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 40 miles per hour, representing a severe crash.

In the Smart car collision, the institute said the Smart, which weighs 1,808 lbs, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much. There was extensive damage to the Smart’s interior and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs. There was little damage to the front seat area of the C Class.

In the Fit's test, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries. In the vehicle-to-vehicle test, the Fit was rated poor while the Accord's structure held up well.

In the Yaris test, the Institute said the mini car sustained damage to the door and front passenger area. The driver dummy showed signs of head injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck and right leg.
Predictably, the manufacturers of the small cars said the tests simulated a high-speed crash that rarely happens on the road.

In this our fourth entry, we discuss again the objectives of cross-examination. We have talked about obtaining evidence which is favorable to one’s case, impeaching or corroborating the testimony of another witness in the case and discrediting the testimony of the witness through proof of prior convictions, inconsistent statements or prior writings. In this entry, we address another alternative to cross-examination and that is “to appear to be cross-examining a witness without really doing so” because counsel really does not have anything that can be accomplished otherwise.

A classic example of what we address in this article is the testimony of a wife or close friend who is called to testify in support of their spouse or friend. Here, questions about the relationships with the parties, cross-examination about their having met with lawyers concerning their testimony before taking the stand and other such innocuous matters may appear to be effective cross-examination in front of the jury when in actuality there is very little that can otherwise be accomplished. If the other alternatives of cross-examination are unavailable, that being that there is no ability to impeach the witness and there is no favorable testimony that can be elicited from them (this is the rare case as typically there is always some favorable testimony that can be elicited) then in such a case, counsel should consider a very brief cross-examination which will leave the jury with the impression that no cross-examination is even necessary given the close relationship between the parties.

The third alternative objective of cross-examination is to discredit the testimony of the witness being called by your opponent. This can be done in several ways. The most traditional way is to impeach the witness by proof of conviction of a crime. Another manner is to prove a prior inconsistent statement, most often taken from prior sworn deposition testimony. However, proof of a prior inconsistent statement may also be offered through an inconsistent statement given to an investigator or other third party witness. Additionally, prior statements or writings of the witness can be used to impeach the witness by establishing that on a prior occasion the witness has offered inconsistent evidence in writing.

When attempting to impeach a witness with proof of conviction of a crime, in Georgia, it is necessary that counsel have a certified copy of the conviction available to establish that the witness was, in fact, convicted of the crime at issue. The crime must involve moral turpitude and must not be too remote in time. If the conviction is more than ten (10) years old, it may be inadmissible. Additionally, if a prior criminal act or specific act of misconduct did not result in a conviction, depending upon the peculiar facts if the case, it may or may not be admissible. A conviction for a crime of moral turpitude obviously casts a shadow on a witness’s veracity.

In order to successfully discredit the testimony of the witness, the impeachment of the witness should be material to their overall testimony. Proving prior inconsistent statements of an immaterial nature is not going to be very persuasive for a jury. However, proof of prior inconsistent statements which are material in nature can be extremely important in convincing a jury what the facts are in a particular case. For example, if a plaintiff in a personal injury case has denied any prior injury or illness in prior sworn testimony, and they take the stand and repeat these denials, if they are impeached with prior inconsistent statements to medical doctors, by way of admissions in medical records or otherwise, this could be very detrimental to their case. If it is established that the Plaintiff has suffered prior back injuries when the Plaintiff has testified that he has never had a prior back injury, obviously, the witness has been successfully impeached and the third purpose of cross examination has been achieved, to discredit the testimony being offered.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many victims of traumatic brain injury resulting from serious automobile accidents, tractor trailer accidents, workers compensation accidents, ATV/All Terrain Vehicle accidents, motorcycle accidents and premises liability accidents. A traumatic brain injury (TBI) is caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain. Not all blows or jolts to the head result in a TBI. The severity of a TBI may range from “mild,” i.e., a brief change in mental status or consciousness to “severe,” i.e., an extended period of unconsciousness or amnesia after the injury.

What many people do not realize is that major depression is a complication seen in about one-third of patients within the first year of a TBI and when present, is associated with poor psychosocial functioning and persisting post-concussive symptoms. Major depression is associated with substantial psychosocial dysfunction and post-concussive symptomatology following traumatic brain injury. Medication has been and is still prescribed to treat this complication; however, in a recent large clinical sample of patients with symptoms of major depression, anti-depressant medication has been shown to lead to the remission of symptoms in a minority of patients.

In our first article on the art of cross-examination, we addressed the first objective of cross-examination, that being an effort to obtain evidence which is favorable to one’s case without attacking the witness. The second alternative purpose of cross-examination, which we address in this article, however, is to impeach or corroborate the testimony of another witness in the case. Here, we do not speak of impeaching the witness offering the testimony or otherwise attacking their credibility, but rather impeaching or corroborating the testimony of another key witness in the case. For example, in a medical malpractice case, if an expert is called to testify that certain fetal monitor strips were illegible and therefore not reliable as evidence, if counsel knows that another witness can persuasively contradict such testimony and/or corroborate it as the case may be, the questions should be asked in such a way as to create for the other witness the best opportunity to either corroborate or impeach the testimony that is offered. Thus, the monitoring strips may be proven to have been perfectly legible and thus the jury may have a different view of whether medical malpractice occurred. Again, this is an important purpose of cross-examination, alternative to the main purpose of impeaching or discrediting the witness testifying.

As a Georgia injury lawyer, I have represented a lot of truck drivers over the years in workers compensation claims, usually involving back injuries. Many of these drivers were well into their sixties and many had significant health problems which probably put the public at risk of serious injury and death had they become involved in a tractor trailer accident. It was always surprising when these older truck drivers who were clearly in bad health were able to pass a DOT physical examination. Last summer the Associated Press released a report which talked about this growing problem. Tractor-trailer and bus drivers in the Unites States are driving our highways with commercial licenses even though they qualify for full federal disability payments. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has admitted that it has fallen short in implementing the 8 recommendations that U.S. Safety Regulators have proposed since 2001. One of these would set minimum standards for officials who determine whether truckers are medically safe to drive. Truckers who have violated the medical rules set out by the government are every where but 12 states have proven to be leaders in producing violations. Texas, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Alabama, New Jersey, Minnesota and Ohio were all states where drivers broke the rules most often. The AP article lists several appalling cases where truck drivers have caused fatalities as a result of their medical violations. In some cases, morbidly obese truck drivers had heart attacks while others admitted to occasional blacking out and forgetting things. If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of being involved in a tractor trailer truck accident, call the trucking accident injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP for a free consultation.

This entry will be the beginning of a series of blogs on trial techniques used by successful trial attorneys in the representation of their clients. The art of cross-examination is just that, an art, not a science. To be a successful trial lawyer, one has to be successful at cross-examination. This requires some natural ability to think logically in the heat of battle a fundamental understanding of what makes for successful cross-examination and actual trial experience.

As successful trial lawyer does not become a successful cross-examiner imitating what is seen on television or other dramatic adaptations. Life is rarely as dramatic as Perry Mason or Matlock. Also, a trial lawyer does not become successful imitating the style and techniques of others. It is imperative that one be his or herself and develop their own style. If a trial lawyer is authentic and uses proper technique, cross-examination can be effective and the truth will emerge which is, of course, the objective of the exercise.

In this beginning article, we are going to explore, in a series of entries, how one should go about effective cross-examination. What are the objectives of cross-examination? We posit four of them. After discussing these four topics, we shall address Twelve (12) Rules which need to be followed if one is to become a successful cross-examiner. To become proficient in the art of cross-examination, certain rules should always be observed, otherwise the exercise will likely be a failure.

Turning to the first question posed: “What are the objectives of cross-examination?” In this entry, we shall address the first of four alternative purposes. The first purpose is often overlooked but nonetheless extremely important.

The first important objective of cross-examination is to obtain evidence which is favorable to your case. It is not necessary to destroy or impeach a witness in every single case. A witness called by an opponent may possess facts which are helpful to your case and thus successful cross-examination can bring out these favorable facts without necessarily having to even attack the witness or his or her credibility. A perfect example of this would be when a defense attorney gains admissions from a plaintiff on cross-examination of all the things they have been able to do since an allegedly disabling injury. By cross-examining the plaintiff about vacations, golf outings, sport outings and things of that nature, obviously, the defense attorney is obtaining favorable testimony which helps to establish that the plaintiff may not be as seriously or permanently injured as is being claimed. Thus, the first purpose that should be considered by counsel in formulating a cross-examination outline for any particular witness is to elicit the evidence that witness may possess which is favorable to your client’s case.

Yamaha Motor Corporation, the manufacturer of Rhino off road vehicles, has recalled the same because of safety issues associated with its Rhino 450, 660 and 700 models. Owners of these Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTVs) are being warned not to use them until certain repairs are made. The repairs that will be made to the vehicles include the installation of a spacebar on the rear wheels as well as the removal of an anti-sway bar which repairs are supposed to reduce the chances of rollovers.

According to a press release issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there have been over 46 deaths involving Rhino 450 and 660 models. Of the rollover related deaths and injuries, which have been reported to the CPSC, many appear to involve turns at relatively low speeds on level terrain. The repair program being announced by the Yamaha Motor Corporation is designed to reduce the chance of rollover but unfortunately, the number of deaths and injuries associated with the use of this product indicates that it is dangerous because of its overall design.

Critics of the ATV charge that the Rhino is top heavy. It has tires that are narrow. The vehicle offers little or no protection for passenger legs in the event of a rollover. Most of the victims of Rhino rollover accidents that survive experience crushed or broken legs, ankles or feet. In some cases, people have been left permanently disabled or have undergone amputations. When children are involved, deaths appear in greater frequency.

Technically, vehicles like the Rhino are not classified as an All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) because of design differences such as having a steering wheel in contrast to an ATV’s handlebars. Nonetheless, despite this design difference, the Rhino functions as an all-terrain vehicle like many other classes of off road vehicles.

Any one operating an ATV or Utility Terrain Vehicle (also known as a UTV) obviously should always wear their helmets and should exercise extreme caution. As stated, there are many cases involving these vehicles at low speed on level terrain, so the danger is paramount, particularly when children are involved. Simply stated, UTVs and ATVs are dangerous vehicles for anyone, particularly the young, and the 46 deaths announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission should be sufficient warning to the public that these vehicles are not toys but rather are dangerous vehicles that should be respected as such by anyone who decides to use these products for recreational purposes.

One of the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP recently got a case involving a propane explosion which completely burned and destroyed the client’s home. The explosion could easily have resulted in the death or serious injury of the clients entire family, including their new baby. Fortunately the injuries were not life threatening; however, they lost everything they owned and have no insurance to replace the home.
Propane is a highly combustible hydro-carbon gas, similar to ethane and butane. Propane gas is compressed to a liquid form and placed into tanker trucks for transport to local usage tanks. Propane is most frequently used as fuel for gas grills and in home heating systems. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 7 million American homes use propane as their primary heating fuel. Propane sold as home heating fuel is termed liquified petroleum gas and is composed of several other fuels in addition to propane. Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is commonly made up of propane, small amounts of propylene and butane. A foul sulfurous odorant termed Ethanethiol is added to odorless propane gas as a safety precaution in order to detect leaks easily in storage tanks. Many home explosions occur as a result of propane suppliers failing to follow proper procedure in filling tanks. For instance, if a delivery is made and the tank to be filled is empty or the gauge is reading empty, the delivery technician should not fill the tank until the system is pressure tested to make sure that there is no leak present. In the alternative, if the tank is filled with propane, the line to the house should be turned off and the owner notified that the system needs to be tested before turning the gas on again. If these procedures are not followed and there is a leak, a deadly explosion can occur, resulting in death, serious injury and substantial property damage.

Georgia injury lawyers know well the serious injuries and wrongful deaths people suffer as a result of motor vehicle accidents; however, perhaps the most catastrophic accident is one involving tractor trailers. Some of the reasons for trucking accidents being such horrible accidents are plain to see. The size and weight of the trucks and cargo have the capacity to do tremendous harm if they are driven recklessly, negligently or under dangerous conditions.

A couple of years ago we represented a young wrecker driver who was off on the grass on Interstate 75 in Georgia. He was there with the police trying to remove vehicle which had been involved in a prior collision. As he was loading one of the wrecked cars on his flatbed wrecker, he looked up to see a tractor trailer veering off the roadway and heading directly towards him. He ran up the embankment to try to avoid being hit and was run over by the truck. As a result he sustained vary serious injuries. As it turned out, the guy who was actually in control of the truck was just a guy who was accompanying the real truck driver. He did not have a commercial drivers license and was actually on disability because of a spinal cord injury that affected the use of his lower extremities!

Many truck accidents occur because the driver is without sufficient skills or training; driving faster than the speed limit or too fast for the conditions; driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol; driving without sufficient sleep/falsifying logbooks or failing to properly secure loads.

Tractor trailer accident victims often sustain very severe injuries and incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, not to mention thousands in lost wages. In these cases, it important to retain legal counsel as soon as possible to investigate on your behalf and to retain competent accident reconstruction experts.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a accident or wreck involving a truck, call one of the experienced truck accident lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

As the lawyers who represented the most seriously injured survivor of the March 2007 Bluffton University bus accident on I-75 in Atlanta, we were greatly disturbed today to hear that two charter buses from Detroit reportedly have crashed at exactly the same location on I-75 in Atlanta.

WSB-TV reports that the two buses mistakenly took an "HOV-only" left exit ramp from I-75 southbound in Atlanta at Northside Drive, instead of staying on I-75's regular HOV lane. The buses were carrying a high school band. The exit on the left side of the road has confused other drivers.

We and other attorneys for the Bluffton bus accident passengers settled the Bluffton claims with the State of Georgia recently for the maximum amount available under the law.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the passengers and their families of the most recent bus accidents at this ramp.

Finch McCranie, LLP is one of the most established law firms in Atlanta, Georgia. Our personal injury attorneys serve those persons and families who are the victims of serious personal injury or wrongful death. For a free consultation, call 404-658-9070, 800-228-9159, or click HERE to email us.