Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Miraculously, there have been no reported injuries or deaths following an accident in Atlanta, Georgia. Yesterday a portion of a concrete parking deck in downtown Atlanta collapsed near the intersection of Spring and 5th Streets, damaging or destroying 38 vehicles. The deck is a pre-fabricated, pre-cast concrete structure that was built eight years ago. The cause of the “pancake collapse,” where a section of the fourth floor fell onto the third, second and first floors, is still under investigation. Although the pre-cast concrete components of the structure were reportedly designed and manufactured by Greenville, S.C.-based Metromont Corp., Hardin Construction Company was the general contractor. Hardin Construction was also the general contractor in charge of building a bridge in Piedmont Park that collapsed earlier this year resulting in the on-the-job death of one worker.
Georgia residents may recall a somewhat similar accident a few years ago when the Phillips Arena was being constructed. Unfortunately two workers were crushed to death when some of the huge pre-fabricated, pre-cast concrete bleacher sections collapsed on top of one another after being welded into position. In a professional negligence case, the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP represented the widow of an ironworker who was killed. By working with experts who had been involved in large construction projects such as the Georgia Dome and Turner Field, we uncovered the reasons for the collapse. In litigation against eleven participants in the Arena construction, we obtained a very favorable settlement for our client.
The Georgia Injury Lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have over 40 years of experience pursuing wrongful death lawsuits, some of which have involved highway and road defects. If you have lost a loved one and feel you have a wrongful death claim, call our experienced attorneys at 1-800-228-9159 for a free consultation.

Atlanta is the scene of another structural collapse. It has just been reported that a parking deck collapsed in the area of Spring and 5th Streets in the midtown area of Atlanta. At this time there are no reports of injuries or deaths, but the efforts of firefighters and rescue personnel to access the collapsed areas have just begun.

Our Atlanta, Georgia, lawyers have investigated and filed lawsuits in numerous construction and structural collapse cases. The most notable was the collapse during the building of Phillips Arena in Atlanta.

While we certainly hope that there are no injuries invoolved in this most recent collapse, there are many potential avenues by which a recovery for fatalities and serious injuries which can occur in such events.

There is potential liability against the designers and architects for improper or dangerous design. There may also be liability for the negligent installation or work of others. We have also successfully established liabilty for the furnishing or selling of defective components such as poorly mixed concrete or steel beams.

Injuries resulting from collapses or failure of equipment should always be explored and investigated thoroughly. The failure to do so can result in a deserving client or survivor settling for small benefits when a much larger recovery was probable

Georgia injury lawyers know that many times automobile accidents and tractor trailer truck accidents result from defects in either the design of a roadway or the existing dangerous condition of a roadway. This is particularly true if the roadway is under construction. Last week in Georgia, it was reported that a woman driving southbound on Interstate I-85 near Newnan, Georgia got a wheel off the edge of the pavement resulting in her losing control of her vehicle, crossing the highway median and hitting a tractor-trailer rig head-on. Sadly, the accident resulted in the woman’s death. Depending on the facts, the Georgia Dept of Transportation can be held liable for highway defects which cause injury of death.

The LA Times recently reported that a jury has ruled that the California Department of Transportation was partially negligent in a crash that killed two teenagers. According to the lawsuit, the agency knew that the rolling mountain road was unsafe prior to the accident. The jury agreed and awarded $6.3 million in damages to the families of those killed and a survivor injured in the accident.

The Georgia Injury Lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have over 40 years of experience pursuing wrongful death lawsuits, some of which have involved highway and road defects. If you have lost a loved one and feel you have a wrongful death claim, call our experienced attorneys at 1-800-228-9159 for a free consultation.

Product liability suits, especially those involving autos and trucks, generally involve life altering injuries and death. As a result of the recent bankruptcy of General Motors Corp., many of the pending and future claims involving GM products stood to be wiped out, leaving the victims with no recourse against the manufacturer. As part of its government-backed restructuring plan, GM wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a new company and leave behind unprofitable assets and other liabilities such as product-related lawsuits.

Many of these victims would have to turn to public assistance for needed medical services. The taxpayer would be left to fund these items.

Consumer groups, several state’s attorney generals, and several individuals with pending claims against objected. Now, as part of a deal brokered by the current Administration, GM has agreed to take on responsibility for future product liability claims. In a concession to the consumer groups and state officials who had threatened to block the sale because of product liability concerns, the new company will now assume responsibility for future claims involving vehicles made by the old company, according to documents filed in federal bankruptcy court in last Friday. A hearing on the proposed sale of assets is scheduled for tomorrow.

Under the previous plan, the new GM would not have assumed any liability for future claims related to GM vehicles made before the sale and creation of the new company. That meant that consumers who wanted to file a lawsuit related to a defective GM vehicle would have had to seek compensation from old GM. However, the old GM will most likely consist of unprofitable assets left over after the sale. In that case there would be nothing left to pay the claims.

Under the new proposed plan, the new company will not assume liability for already pending claims and those victims will still be forced to seek compensation from old GM.

Federal officials are warning consumers to stop using Zicam, a popular cold remedy because they say that it could damage or destroy the users’ sense of smell. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received 130 reports of people who lost their sense of smell after using Zicam nasal products, which include Zicam Cold Remedy and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs.

The products were introduced by Matrixx Initiatives of Scottsdale, Arizona in 1999. In 2006, Matrixx paid $12 million to settle 340 lawsuits from Zicam users who claimed that the product destroyed their sense of smell. Hundreds of other lawsuits have been filed. The Georgia Injury Lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have served injured Georgians since 1965. We have won millions for our clients and are committed to protecting consumers from dangerous products. If you have been injured by Zicam or any other dangerous products, call us for a free consultation.

Georgia injury lawyers see people seriously injured by dangerous products of all types. Many dangerous products result in the wrongful death of their users. A grout cleaner which was once sold by Home Depot is one product alleged to have been dangerous. Dozens of product liability lawsuits over injuries allegedly caused by the tile grout cleaning product will go forward as general negligence claims, a federal judge has decided. However, in ruling on the multi-district litigation, U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. granted summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and five companies tied to the manufacturer and distribution of Stand ‘N Seal regarding consumer product safety claims. Although Home Depot didn’t manufacture the grout sealer, it is alleged that they did not remove the product from store shelves and continued to sell it to the public after they knew or should have know it was dangerous. The case is In re: Stand ‘N Seal Products liability litigation.
If you are a loved one has been injured as a result of using a dangerous product, contact the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP for a free consultation.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many victims of dangerous products. The type and nature of these dangerous products runs the gambit. Products liability in Georgia has arisen primarily as a negligence concept and even today remains the most viable theory of products liability in terms of jury comprehension. It was announced this week that a federal judge in Atlanta is permitting dozens of product liability suits against Home Depot and the makers of a tile grout cleaner to proceed to trial on negligence claims; however, he has dismissed other claims that sought damages for violating federal consumer product safety laws. The product at issue, Stand ‘N Seal Spray-On Grout Cleaner, was produced exclusively for Home Depot according to court filings in the case. It is alleged in the case before the Court that the manufacturer of the grout sealer had been on notice, for more than a month before the victim purchased the product, about the potentially devastating health problems associated with its use. It was also alleged that the manufacturer delayed notification to the Product Safety Commission of the growing health complaints associated with the product’s use and that they withheld critical information that delayed a mandatory recall of the product. According to documents filed in the case, at least 2 people died and dozens were hospitalized after breathing vapors from the aerosol chemical spray product.

If you are a loved one has been injured as a result of using a dangerous product, contact the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP for a free consultation.

Many drugs which offer promising cures when first introduced later prove to be ineffective or even dangerous. One that falls in the dangerous category is Tysabri, manufactured by Biogen, Inc. Tysarbi is a prescription medicine approved for patients with relapsing forms of MS. It has been shown to slow the worsening of disability that is common in patients with MS and decrease the number of flare-ups or relapses of the disease.

However, Biogen recently reported the ninth confirmed case of progressive multifocal leukoencphalopathy (PML) in a patient taking Tysabri. PML is a rare and often fatal viral disease that is characterized by progressive damage or inflammation of the white matter of the brain at multiple locations.

According to reports, the patient with the latest confirmed PML case took 35 doses of the monthly medication. Only two of the nine cases since last July were located in the U.S.
In 2005, a link between Tysabri and PML led to the drug being pulled off the market for 18 months. But, due to its effectiveness in fighting MS, it was relaunched in 2006.

It is reported, however, that the long-projected risk of developing the PML infection while on Tysabri is well below 1 in 1,000 patients. However, there is no way to predict who will get PML, and there is no known treatment, prevention, or cure.

A 70-year old north Georgia man burned to death Saturday after his tractor-trailer left the roadway and caught on fire. Rescue workers attempted to pull the man from the burning truck but were unable to do so in time to save him. Authorities did not know why the truck ran off of Interstate 85 and did not know whether the driver fell asleep .

Many tractor-trailer accidents are caused by a driver’s inattentiveness or fatigue resulting from the operation of a tractor-trailer for an excessive amount of time. Federal regulations prohibit a trucking company from allowing a driver to operate a tractor-trailer while the driver’s ability or alertness is impaired by fatigue, illness, or any other cause which would make it unsafe for the driver to operate the vehicle. These regulations also prescribe a maximum number of hours that a driver can be on duty during any day or week and require a driver to maintain a daily log of his work status. Georgia lawyers who handle serious personal injury and wrongful death cases against tractor-trailer companies know that a complete investigation of such a case involves the careful scrutiny of these log books.

If you or a loved one have been involved in an automobile accident or a tractor-trailer accident, consult the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP who have been handling serious injury and wrongful deaths for over 40 years.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have written before about the potential liability one may have for ATV accidents, especially if it involves riding passengers. Not only does the owner of the ATV risk being sued for injuries or death caused by their use of the ATV, but they may also find that there is no liability coverage available to them when they are sued. Last week, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Allstate Insurance Company in its suit seeking a declaration from the Court that it had no duty to provide coverage, a defense or indemnification arising out of an accident, in which a young girl was thrown off the back of an ATV whose owners had a homeowners policy through Allstate. The court held that the accident in question fell under the policy’s exclusion for bodily injury arising our of the ownership or use of a motor vehicle, which is designated principally for recreational use off public roads when an insured person owns that vehicle and it is being used away from an insured premises. The accident here occurred at a field located approximately 15 miles from the insured’s home. Accordingly, although from a liability standpoint, there may be a number of viable claims that can be made against the owners of ATVs for their negligent operation of the ATV, there is often no insurance coverage available to compensate injured victims. If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of an ATV accident consult the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

Georgia citizens continue to suffer serious injuries and death in ever increasing numbers on a stretch of Interstate 85 near Newnan, Georgia. Most of these accidents involve tractor-trailers. According to authorities today, one person was killed and another person seriously injured on Monday afternoon in an accident on the northbound side of Interstate 85. Shortly after the initial fatal accident, a second major accident with injuries occurred when a northbound tractor-trailer rear-ended another that had stopped for the first wreck. Many of these accidents have occurred as a result of dangerous conditions existing upon the roadway which has been under construction for at least the last two years. The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP currently represent the family of an individual in a wrongful death case that resulted from vehicles hydroplaning on that stretch of road. The three most common reasons for hydroplaning are speed, condition of tires and excessive water on the roadway.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have been handling serious injury and wrongful death cases for over 40 years. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured as a result of the negligence of someone else, call us for a free consultation.

Our Atlanta medical malpractice attorneys frequently see cases in which the practices engaged in by physicians are questionable. Yet in many instances the practices are so egregious that one has to wonder how the medical establishment could allow them to occur or continue. Yesterday, the New York Times reported just such a situation at a VA Hospital in Philadelphia.

In a common treatment for prostate cancer, doctors implant dozens of radioactive seeds in the prostate to attack the cancerous cells. But, according to reports, when Dr. Gary D. Kao treated one patient at the VA hospital in Philadelphia, his aim was more than a little off.

Most of the seeds, 40 in all, were implanted in the patient’s healthy bladder, not the prostate.
It was an egregious error, but according to the report, with the help of federal regulators Dr. Kao, was able to conceal his mistake. He was allowed to rewrite his operative note to match the number of seeds in the prostate.

The patient had to undergo a second implant which also failed, resulting in an unintended dose to the rectum. Regulators knew nothing of this second mistake because no one reported it.
The report disclosed that two years later, in 2005, Dr. Kao again changed an operative note after putting half the seeds in the wrong organ. Once again, regulators did not object.

This was only the tip of the iceberg. The Cancer unit at the VA Philadelphia hospital operated with virtually no outside scrutiny and botched 92 of 116 cancer treatments over a span of more than six years , and then concealed the errors.

The physicians in the unit continued implants for a year even though the equipment that measured whether patients received the proper radiation dose was broken. The radiation safety committee at the Veterans Affairs hospital knew of this problem but took no action.

The Times concluded that the 92 implant errors resulted from a systemwide failure in which none of the safeguards that were supposed to protect veterans from poor medical care worked. Peer review, in which physicians examine one another’s work, did not exist in the unit. The V.A.’s radiation safety program; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the use of all nuclear materials; and the Joint Commission, a group that accredited the hospital, all failed to intervene.

Virtually none of the substandard implants in Philadelphia were reported to the nuclear commission, meaning errors went uninvestigated for weeks, months and sometimes years. During that time, many patients did not know that their cancer treatments were flawed.

Many of the patients, all veterans, suffered severe pain and other problems, such as incontinence, as a result of these errors.

This report comes on the heels of another disclosure some months ago that VA Hospitals were failing to properly sterilize medical equipment, exposing veterans to the risk of infectious diseases such as hepatitis and AIDS. Surely, our veterans deserve better.

Over the years, our lawyers have handled many different cases involving serious injuries to children. These injuries arise in a myriad of contexts and are oftentimes heartbreaking. Over the years, we have had serious burn injury cases, dog bite cases,unsafe premises, sexual abuse cases, car accidents, medical malpractice cases, drowning accidents, playground injuries,unsafe consumer products, school injuries and the like, all involving young children. Some of these cases have resulted in wrongful deaths, comas, paralysis, burns and amputations. Presently, we are handling injuries to children involving negligence by daycare providers and owners of dogs who have allowed them to wander free of restraint and attack innocent children. Depending upon the severity of injuries sustained, these cases can affect the injured child permanently and the emotional, physical and psychic trauma can require very close attention to the needs of the young child. There may be permanent scarring involved; there may be the need for future treatment or medical surgery and there may be a diminution in the individual’s ability to earn and labor in the future and support themselves. While every case is unique, representing an injured child in a serious injury case is an undertaking that requires care and attention and an analysis of whether the injuries sustained will affect the child for the balance of their life. If so, obviously, greater attention to detail is needed than would otherwise be the case.

All cases involving children which result in a settlement or verdict have to be reviewed by the Probate Court system here in Georgia. The money from a settlement belongs to the child, not to the parents. While the parents are entitled to be reimbursed for any medical and out of pocket expenses that they incur, any other portion of the settlement must be placed in an interest bearing account set up for the lifetime benefit of the child. Such a fund must be held in trust until the child turns 18 but can be used for educational, medical or other needs of the child before they turn 18, however, such use is subject to Probate Court approval and supervision. Many Probate Courts take the position that the parents have to provide for the child until they reach the age of majority and therefore many courts will not allow parents to encroach upon any settlement funds as a way of discharging their own responsibilities. However, in certain cases, where the needs of the child are great, funds set aside for medical treatment and educational needs can be used, again subject to Probate Court supervision and approval.

When a child playing in the street darts in front of a car chasing a ball, and is seriously injured, the question arises, of course, whether there is any negligence claim at all against a third party. Many times children are killed or injured because of a lack of proper supervision by their parents and/or because of the child’s own negligence. Oftentimes, however, serious injuries to children occur which are entirely preventable and are caused by the negligence of third parties. We see this in the context of dog bite cases, automobile wrecks, daycare injuries, drowning accidents and the otherother similar cases referenced. Regardless of the circumstances involved which lead to the injury, care must be taken to make sure that the child that is properly represented and that the child’s needs are met. Our experienced serious injury lawyers share the common goal of properly representing injured children and assisting their families in obtaining the justice and compensation they require. If your child has been injured as a result of preventable accident caused by the negligence of a third party, call us today at 1-800-228-9159.

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned consumers to stop using Zicam, a popular homeopathic cold remedy, because it could damage or destroy their sense of smell, a condition called anosmia.
The Food and Drug Administration received 130 reports from consumers and doctors of people losing their sense of smell after using one of the Zicam nasal products, which include Zicam Cold Remedy and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs. The reports date to 1999, when Matrixx Initiatives of Scottsdale, Ariz., first introduced the products.

The FDA issued its consumer alert even though Matrixx refused to recall its products. In a news release, Matrixx said it had suspended shipments of Zicam and would reimburse customers who wanted a refund.

Matrixx had $101 million in sales last year, of which $40 million came from Zicam products. Because Matrixx has called Zicam a homeopathic product, the company was not required to seek agency approval before selling it.

Under current law, the FDA. does not have the authority to order product recalls but must rely on manufacturers to do so voluntarily. Bills have been introduced in Congress would give the agency recall power.

This action by the FDA is hopefully a signal that the Obama administration will take the public safety seriously and not bow to desires of large companies who have no concern for the safety of their products. Bush administration appointees said the FDA. did not need mandatory recall authority because companies always withdrew unsafe products when asked.

Matrixx issued a statement saying it believes there is no causal link between its products and anosmia.

Matrixx has received more than 800 reports of Zicam users losing their sense of smell but did not provide those reports to the FDA. The law requires producers of approved drugs to forward to the FDA all reports of product-related injuries.

In 2006, Matrixx paid $12 million to settle 340 lawsuits from Zicam users who claimed that the product destroyed their sense of smell. Hundreds more such suits have since been filed.

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. Today I read about a tragic case that occurred on May 16th in South Carolina. In that case, a 15- year-old girl was riding on the seat behind her 32 year old neighbor when the neighbor lost control of the vehicle and the two were ejected. As a result, the teen sustained spinal cord injuries and is now paralyzed. According to police, the driver was operating the ATV at a high rate of speed and neither of the riders was wearing a helmet. The ATV was not designed to carry passengers. Moreover, the driver allegedly tested positive for marijuana. As a result of the accident, the driver has been criminally charged by authorities. Almost all ATV fatalities or serious injuries occur while violating one or more of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Rules of ATV Operation”and this case was no exception. These rules are as follows:
A. Children under sixteen should not ride adult-sized ATV (engines bigger than 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. An adult who negligently rides a passenger on an ATV who is subsequently injured may subject themselves to civil liability for doing so. 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.

Our Atlanta lawyers recently completed a case involving a tire failure on a truck.. This past Tuesday, in a case being watched nationwide by product-liability attorneys, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court a ruling that allows a wide-ranging review of Cooper Rubber & Tire Co. records.

The case in which the ruling was issued, involves Cooper made the tires on a Chrysler 15-passenger van, which rolled several times after the left rear tire blew as Utah State University students were headed back to campus from a field trip in northern Utah's Box Elder County. Eight students and an instructor died in the Sept. 26, 2005, crash, and two students survived with severe injuries.

The survivors and the families of all but the instructor and another student are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, filed a year after the accident. The families settled their claims last year against DaimlerChrysler Corp., the maker of the van.

The lawsuit alleges that Cooper Tire knew the design and manufacture of its tires were faulty and did not fix the problems. The plaintiffs’ attorneys wanted to see documents pertaining to the design and manufacture of similar Cooper Tires.

A United States Magistrate Judge initially ordered that Cooper Tire afford wide access to company documents requested by lawyers for the victims of the crash and their families. His ruling was later affirmed by the United States District Court. Cooper Tire then appealed the order and argued at a hearing last year before the Denver-based 10th Circuit that it would require the company to divulge trade secrets and other proprietary information.

The appeals court rejected Cooper’s argument that the order was too broad. The lawsuit, brought in U.S. District Court in Utah a year after the accident, had been stalled for 15 months while the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals considered Cooper Tire's appeal.

Medical malpractice claims in Georgia are constantly coming under fire from insurance companies and doctors who allege they raise the costs of medical care through increased insurance costs to doctors. For many years our Atlanta based attorneys have watched as these large insurance companies and medical groups spend massive sums to influence politicians to enact legislation eroding the rights of innocent victims of medical negligence.

A recent study in New York has exposed these false arguments.Data from the National Practitioner Data Bank show 1,882 medical malpractice payments in New York for $743 million in 2008, down from 2,417 payments for almost $823 million two years earlier. Yet, the premiums doctors pay for insurance have not been reduced. The report Friday urged an independent review of insurers' premium-setting practices.

As many other studies have shown, less than 2 percent of the entire cost of the medical system is from malpractice. The Center for Medical Consumers has stated that malpractice insurance premiums are not a major contributor to the health care cost of inflation. Yet, large insurance companies and doctors groups continue to spread this false information.

In New York, consumer advocates are urging state lawmakers to allow victims and families to sue within 30 months after a medical error is discovered, instead of 30 months after the error is made, saying it is a particular issue with cancer cases and pathology reports. Current New York law, and similar laws in Georgia provide doctors an incentive to hide their mistakes from patients.

Predictably, physicians and insurance companies have opposed any legislation to revise the statute of limitations, while at the same time pushing for caps on awards for pain and suffering. Currently in Georgia, all non economic damages from medical malpractice are capped at $350,000.00. This has led to many horrible injustices and essentially created a system whereby the wealthy have greater recovery rights than those less fortunate.

We read yesterday in the paper about a tragic case in Charlotte, N.C. involving a police chase which resulted in the death of an innocent 84-year old woman who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught up in the chase, resulting in her death. According to the news reports of the incident, the police were chasing a suspected shoplifter who had committed a petty offense at a local shopping mall. Although the news reports are sketchy, it appears that the merchant called the police and shortly thereafter the police spotted the vehicle being operated by the suspected thief. A three mile chase ensued at high speeds and during the chase, the suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck the vehicle being operated by the innocent victim. Her death resulted. The petty thief has now been charged with murder.

We have blogged before in the past about the reasons why there should be policies prohibiting these kinds of chases. The death penalty to the innocent is the end result and in our judgment the death of this innocent lady cannot be justified by the need to apprehend a suspected petty thief. The news reports are sketchy as to what was stolen, but it appears that it was merchandise probably worth less than $100.00. In order to apprehend a petty thief, the police made a decision to expose innocent members of the motoring public to the possibility of serious injury or death. When balancing the risk to the public caused by a dangerous high speed chase against the need to apprehend the offender, it is our judgment, and that of many experts in the field, that public policy demands that in such circumstances, when the police are chasing a non-violent offender, they should terminate such a chase because it is foreseeable that an innocent third party might be seriously injured or killed if they do not. Because this chase happened over a three mile span, the police should have known that the suspect was not going to pull over and that the risk to the public caused by the chase itself was a greater danger to the public than was the suspect himself.

The police are defending the chase, as they always do. They are stating that the suspect was found to be on probation and had a criminal record for other theft offenses. These facts, probably discovered after the fact, were probably not known to the pursuing officer. Facts discovered after an incident can hardly justify an officer’s actions at the time of the incident. In this case, according to the news accounts, the officer only knew that the suspect he was pursuing at high speeds was a petty thief. Why would the police condone a chase where a death occurs when the need to apprehend was so slight and the danger to the public presented by a petty thief was far less than the danger to the public presented by the chase itself?

Of course, we do not know all the facts surrounding this case and can only base our views on what little information has been publicly released. Nonetheless, it is our strong belief and that of many experts throughout the country, including many involved in law enforcement, that law enforcement must do a better job of policing itself and must not condone dangerous high speed police chases in the context of a non-violent offense where the suspect/offender poses little or no danger to the public and the chase itself poses considerable dangers, oftentimes resulting in serious injury or death. This tragic case in Charlotte is no different from many others throughout the country. Indeed, our firm is handling a similar case in Augusta where the police were chasing two shoplifters which resulted in the death of three individuals. We pose the question: Was the death penalty to the innocent justified by the need to apprehend the suspect and the danger to the public presented by the petty thief? We think not.

Continue reading "Police Chase For Non-Violent Crime Turns Deadly" »

In a wrongful death case where the deceased individual is survived neither by a spouse, child or parent, under Georgia law such a cause of action would vest in the Executor or Administrator of the Estate. In short, there will always be someone able to proceed on behalf of the “heirs-at-law” and such an individual, once duly appointed, will proceed in a fiduciary capacity to protect the rights of the heirs-at-law relative to the wrongful death action. Thus, if an individual dies and is neither married, has children or is survived by parents, but does have siblings as an example, then the siblings could sue for the wrongful death of their sibling subject to a pro-rated distribution of the proceeds in the event of a recovery. If an only child is involved, a representative of the estate could be appointed to proceed on behalf of other relatives. In short, if the death is wrongful, Georgia law recognizes that someone must be allowed to pursue the claim even if it means seeking representation on behalf of the decedent’s estate.

In Georgia, if an individual loses her or her life due to the negligence of a third party and is not survived either by a spouse or children, the cause of action for the wrongful death of such an individual vests in the surviving parents. If both parents are alive, the cause of action is vested jointly in the parents if they are living together. If one parent is deceased, the right is in the surviving parent. If both parents are living, but are divorced, separated or living apart, the right shall be in both parents but either parent may proceed on behalf of the other. In such a case, the non-participating spouse is bound in the action brought by the other spouse.

If an individual is killed due to the negligence of a third party and that person was born out of wedlock, under Georgia law, such a fact shall be no bar to recovery and a surviving parent can sue for the wrongful death of his or her child. However, failure of a parent to provide support for the child during his/her life can diminish the parent’s right to share in the recovery. In short, if the surviving parents are separated or divorced, under Georgia law, the Court will determine an equitable apportionment of any wrongful death recovery based on the nature and extent of relationship of the parents to the deceased child.

The Atlanta consumer and product liability lawyers of Finch McCranie LLP have successfully litigated cases against auto manufacturers for serious injury and death caused by defects in their products. Now, as a result of the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, many deserving victims of these defective products may be left without recourse.

The bankruptcy proceedings currently underway will leave consumers currently bringing personal-injury and product-liability lawsuits against Chrysler LLC and General Motors unable to continue their actions and receive compensation for their injuries. In effect, the auto manufactures are getting a free pass for years of incompetent management practices and their victims are being left powerless.

Typically, lawsuits are stayed while a company is in bankruptcy. Plaintiffs and other unsecured creditors are among the last to be paid by a bankrupt company, if they are paid at all. Plaintiff’s lawyers in the Chrysler case objected to the sale of the company’s assets because they suspect that there won’t be any money left, even if they were to win their cases.

Consumer advocacy groups, such as the Center for Auto Safety, are appealing a New York bankruptcy court’s May 31 ruling on the sale of Chrysler’s assets to an entity led by Italy’s Fiat SpAsay. The ruling relieves the new company of responsibility for old losses. Plaintiffs and their families, organized by the non-profit Center for Justice and Democracy are concerned that cases against GM may also be thrown out and are seeking congressional action.

These consumer groups are asking that the bankruptcy system provide for these victims or that the Obama administration fashion a victim’s fund such as was done for the survivors of the 9-11 attacks. One group, the Center for Justice and Democracy, has proposed that both automakers purchase a retroactive insurance policy to cover past, present and future injury claims.

One individual who is affected by these cases is Jeremy Warriner, who has sued Chrysler as a result of a 2005 accident in his Jeep Wrangler. Warriner, 34, alleges that a plastic brake-fluid container rupture during the crash was responsible for a fire that resulted in his legs being amputated. Even if he were to successfully prove his claims, he could be left without a remedy. He is only one of many Americans whose taxpayers dollars are being used to save these mismanaged companies and are being left without any remedy for the past misdeeds of the manufacturers.

In Part I of this series, we set forth the provisions of Georgia law for wrongful death actions where surviving spouses were involved. In this article, we shall address actions by surviving children under Georgia’s wrongful death statute where a spouse does not survive to bring such a case.

If a parent is killed due to the negligence of a third party and is not survived by a spouse but is survived by children, the cause of action for the wrongful death vests with the surviving children. The fact that a child is born out of wedlock is not an issue and all surviving children are treated equally. A minor child has to bring such an action through a responsible adult or a Court Appointed Guardian. Step-children, however, have no right to pursue a wrongful death action for the death of their step-parent.

If a single parent is killed, such as a single working mother, obviously, a surviving ex-spouse has no right to bring the claim for wrongful death because such a claim belongs to the children and not to an ex-spouse. If the ex-spouse, however, is appointed as a Guardian of the children born between the two, such an ex-spouse could be appointed by the Court to protect the interests of the children. However, any recovery for the wrongful death of the deceased single parent would belong solely to the children and the ex-spouse could collect nothing in his or her own individual capacity, but would rather proceed solely in a fiduciary capacity.

Under Georgia law, as set forth in our prior article, if a deceased individual is married at the time of his or her death, the surviving spouse has the cause of action and may file a wrongful death lawsuit to recover, not only for themselves, but also for any surviving children.

A lawsuit has been filed by Georgia surgery centers against Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia Inc. and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, seeking class action. The lawsuit, like many others around the country attacks the insurer’s practice of discouraging visits to out-of-network providers by reimbursing procedures at a tiny fraction of “usual and customary” charges.

The suit is similar to one filed earlier this year by a dialysis provider against Blue Cross. That suit was dismissed. The new suit alleges Blue Cross members paid higher premiums in exchange for the flexibility to receive coverage for care from providers who are not part of the plan’s preferred network.

Blue Cross Georgia is alleged to have engaged in the practice of targeted out-of-network providers, including ambulatory surgery centers, for a drastic reductions in reimbursement to a mere fraction of usual and customary charges. The suit alleges these practices violate federal and state laws protecting patients and providers, as well as Blue Cross Blue Shields contracts.
The suit alleges that Blue Cross has cut its reimbursement to out-of-network surgery centers by about 80 percent and reduced reimbursement rates to non-member surgery centers making it impossible for their insureds to receive the benefits they are paying for. Thus, the suit alleges the insurer is charging for a service it has effectively eliminated.

The Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for Blue Cross Georgia’s alleged failure to pay the contracted reimbursement rate and they are asking the court to force Blue Cross Georgia to honor its agreements.

One of area of confusion to the public is determining who has the right to bring a wrongful death action in Georgia. Because our firm handles many such cases in Atlanta and throughout the State, we have decided to blog on this area of the law so that the public will better understand the provisions of Georgia law which control wrongful death actions.

In this article we shall focus on the rights of a spouse who is married to an individual killed by the negligence of a third party. In all such cases, where the decedent is married at the time of death, only the surviving spouse may bring a wrongful death action. Interestingly, however, any spouse that brings a wrongful death action on behalf of a deceased partner does so in a fiduciary capacity if children are involved.

O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2(a) provides that:
“The surviving spouse, or if there is no surviving spouse, a child or children, either minor or sui juris, may recover for the homicide of the spouse or parent the full value of the life of the decedent, as shown by the evidence.”

What this code section means is that if an individual is killed through the negligence of a third party and the decedent is married, the surviving spouse has the right to bring a wrongful death action in Georgia courts. If the deceased individual was not only married but had children, then the surviving spouse has to divide any recovery with such children on a pro-rata basis provided the surviving spouse shall in no event receive less than one-third (1/3) of the recovery as such spouse’s share.

If a married individual dies and has children, as stated, only the spouse may file a wrongful death action in Georgia. A child has no right to bring a wrongful death action if the parent is living unless the spouse refuses to bring such an action. While the spouse is vested under Georgia law with the sole authority to bring the lawsuit, if there is a collection by way of a jury verdict, a judgment or settlement, the spouse has to divide the proceeds equally with surviving children provided the spouse shall in no event ever receive less than one-third (1/3) of the total amount collected, minus attorney’s fees and expenses where applicable. The fact that a child has been born out of wedlock is no bar to recovery by that child with respect to such child’s pro-rata percentage of any settlement funds.

What is interesting about Georgia law is that a surviving spouse owes a duty to surviving children and can even be held liable to them for breach of that duty as their representative. Any lawyer representing a surviving spouse who pursues a wrongful death action must take care to protect the interest of all beneficiaries, both in prosecuting the claim and in disbursing the proceeds of a Georgia wrongful death case.

We receive many inquiries from Atlanta consumers regarding the safety of products apporved by the federal regulatory agencies. During the Bush administration many consumers here in Georgia and elsewhere have expressed concern and bewilderment that certain drugs and products banned in other countries were "approved" by federal agencies for distribution in the United States.

Now, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has announced it is reviewing a controversial decision it made last year -- the conclusion that BPA, a chemical used in baby bottles and food containers, is safe for infants.

The announcement came just hours after two members of Congress sent a letter to new FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg questioning that decision Commissioner Hamburg has pledged to restore confidence in the agency by putting science first in its decision-making process. This is encouraging news as during the past administration many such decisions seemed to be based upon political grounds.

The FDA ruled last year that trace amounts of bisphenol-A, or BPA, that leach out of bottles and food packaging are not dangerous. But the agency's own advisers faulted the report for relying on a small number of industry-sponsored studies. And consumer advocates said it ignored dozens of animal studies suggesting the chemical can interfere with infant hormone levels.

A spokesman for the FDA said the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Jesse Goodman, was recently asked to take a fresh look at this important issue from a scientific and policy position. The FDA pledged to review all the data, listen to people on all sides of this issue, and talk to experts inside and outside of the federal government. It further stated that the review will be completed in a short time frame.

BPA is plastic-hardening chemical used in hundreds of household items, including glasses, CDs and canned food. About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, as the chemical leaches out of food containers.

But while the kidneys of older children and adults quickly eliminate the chemical from their bodies, newborns and infants may retain it for much longer.

Consumer advocates want restrictions on BPA because it mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen, potentially interfering with young, growing bodies.

Major U.S. retailers, including Toys 'R' Us Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.have removed products containing the chemical from their stores. Canada last year banned BPA from all baby bottles and Minnesota last month became the first state to ban baby bottles and sippy cups made with the chemical.

When I was in high school, I was hired as a forklift driver at a textile plant. I was given no training whatsoever, had never operated a forklift and within hours was lifting huge pallets of heavy materials high into the air for placement on warehouse shelving. Fortunately, I did not injury anyone or kill myself, but I easily could have. Indeed, that same summer a high school friend of mine lost his life when he accidently drove a forklift backwards off of a loading ramp, killing himself in the process.

Just a month or two ago, here in Atlanta, I read about a news story where one employee at a car dealership was training another employee on how to drive a forklift when the co-worker overran the employee killing him. Here at Finch McCranie, we have represented individuals who were involved in industrial accidents where they were struck by forklifts inside of manufacturing facilities. These cases typically result in very serious personal injuries involving amputations, paralysis or death. Incredibility, my experience in high school is repeated over and over again as oftentimes the operator of these forklifts has been provided little or no training. Today, this is a violation of OSHA regulations. It was not in the 70's and 80's.

Forklifts are very heavy and very dangerous industrial vehicles involved every year in a large number of deaths and serious injuries in the workplace. Many of the injuries and fatalities committed while these vehicles are being operated could have been prevented if the operators had been properly trained and/or had properly protected themselves. Oftentimes, the operators of these vehicles are not wearing seatbelts and/or seatbelts are not even provided for their use. If such a vehicle overturns, because of its weight, the operator can be crushed.

Because many of these industrial accidents are preventable, proper training standards should include specified training, seatbelts, overhead protective devices, alarms and proper maintenance of these forklift trucks. If these dangerous vehicles are not properly maintained and/or the operator is not properly trained, serious accidents are foreseeable.

One reason the public may not be as aware of these types of accidents is because they are typically covered by workers’ compensation where lawsuits are not involved. If one employee injuries a co-employee, the claim is covered by workers’ compensation laws not by liability statutes. However, our firm has been involved in cases where a forklift driver injured a third party, not a co-employee, such as a truck driver or another person present on a plant’s premises when the forklift was being operated. In such cases, litigation oftentimes ensues, again, because the injuries are very serious and the victim typically is permanently disabled and unable to work again. Lawsuits can be a determent to other claims but this provides little comfort for the victim, as we have seen in the past.

If one goes on any search engine one will find the term “forklift accidents” to be somewhat ubiquitous. This is proof in and of itself that these heavy industrial machines are capable of inflicting serious injury and wrongful death if not properly operated. Regrettably, based on the number of these industrial accidents each year, we anticipate that third parties will continue to be injured by these dangerous instrumentalities at an ever increasing pace until and unless there is a greater state or federal penalty for failing to properly train the operators of these machines. OSHA penalties are typically small. Therefore, the biggest financial penalty that can be imposed as a determent may be a lawsuit and jury verdict.

Bus accidents have been a problem in Atlanta and Georgia for many years. Recently, the lawyers of Finch McCranie LLP were able to secure a very favorable settlement for the most seriously injured survivor in the Bluffton Bus crash which occurred here some years ago.

Now, in an encouraging move, the National Transportation Safety Board is recommending charter bus companies come up with better plans to deal with crashes in remote areas. Last Friday, the NTSB sent recommendations to the American Bus Association and the United Motorcoach Association. The list suggests detailed contingency plans and information about driving through remote areas where there is no wireless telephone coverage.

In January 2008, nine people died and 43 others were injured in a bush crash near Mexican Hat, Utah, as they returned to Phoenix, Arizona from a weekend ski trip in Telluride, Colo.
The NTSB said the accident was most likely caused by the 71-year-old driver's fatigue, which slowed his reaction time. The bus also had to take a longer route than normal because a mountain pass had been closed by heavy snow.

The NTSB recommendations said the charter company should have considered overnight accommodations or provided relief drivers somewhere along the 550-mile drive between Telluride and Phoenix.

The NTSB also criticized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to implement motorcoach safety recommendations made a decade ago.

These recommendations included stronger roofs on buses, that buses should have easy-to-open, shatterproof windows and that steps be taken — including possibly requiring seat belts — to prevent passengers from being ejected in rollovers.

We are hopeful that with a new administration in Washington, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will act on these common sense recommendations which will most likely save lives and prevent injuries.