Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Negligent security cases typically arise in the context of a victim of a criminal assault either at an apartment complex or motel. If the apartment complex provides security but negligently does so, and a tenant is attacked at a time an attack is foreseeable, an apartment complex can be held liable even if the damages were perpetrated by a criminal third party. Similarly, in a motel setting, if the motel is aware that their tenants are at heightened risk of attacks from criminals and fail to take appropriate security measures to protect their guests, under certain limited circumstances, the motel owner can be liable for an attack upon the customer.

Under Georgia law, generally, there is no duty to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third parties. For such a duty to exist, a plaintiff must demonstrate foreseeability. Foreseeability is heightened and superior knowledge by the owner or occupier of the dangerous condition created by a third person. When a victim seeks to demonstrate knowledge on the part of a defendant by presenting evidence of prior crimes allegedly known to the owner/occupier, substantial similarity between the crimes is required. In other words, if someone is the victim of a rape then forced entries into motel rooms, other rapes or other similar crimes will typically be required to be proven in order to demonstrate that it was foreseeable that a guest of the motel may have been attacked by a criminal third party absent adequate security for their protection. As stated, generally, there is no liability for third party criminal acts because such acts are deemed to be intervening acts sufficient of themselves to have caused the damages and injuries without the contributing influence of the landowner/occupier.

In today’s crime ridden society, it is obviously foreseeable that anybody can be victimized by crime at any time or place. What is legally necessary in these cases is superior knowledge. If a motel owner knows that their guests have been subject to numerous crimes on their property and fails to take steps to either warn their guests and/or protect them, there can be liability because of the superior knowledge of the landowner/occupier. Similarly, if an apartment complex is aware that tenants are at risk of being raped or attacked by criminals because of superior knowledge of criminal activity on property they own, they too can be held civilly liable for damages caused by the rapist. Of course, before they can be held liable, they must also be negligent, that is failing to provide adequate security in the face of such superior knowledge.

In any case where a victim of a crime believes that they may be a victim of negligent security, they should consult with counsel as soon as possible. Investigation of the facts while they are fresh is always imperative in such cases. The more evidence of foreseeability and superior knowledge the more likely it is that the landowner/occupier can be held liable civilly for damages.

It was announced today that Ford Motor Company has recalled 2005 and 2006 year model F-150 pickup trucks because of problems with unexpected and unintended airbag deployments. According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, the recall involves approximately 150,000 F-150 pickup trucks. It appears that front airbags have been deploying unannounced. Obviously, this could lead to an accident if the airbag deploys while the vehicle is being driven or otherwise causes a distraction that might cause a driver to lose control. Ford officials have stated that an improperly installed wire in the steering wheel may be the cause of the random unanticipated airbag deployments. Hopefully, all of these vehicles will be repaired without further incident because otherwise a serious collision could occur.

Any owner of a 2005/2006 F-150 pick up truck should immediately take the vehicle in for inspection and repair. Otherwise, an airbag could deploy at a most inconvenient time which could result in a serious accident.

Cribs, playpens, and bassinets continue to injure and kill infants with alarming frequency.

A study published this week in the journal Pediatrics reveals the alarming frequency of injuries to babies who have been placed in cribs, playpens or bassinets.

A review of emergency-room treatments for more than 181,000 babies age 2 and under from 1990 to 2008 showed an average of 113 deaths per year from accidents associated with those three pieces of nursery equipment.

The number which is considered low because such deaths are typically under-reported is far higher than should be acceptable, the authors note. But they are not especially surprising, as such fatalities have been tracked before.

The new information that this study tracks is the number of non-fatal, but often quite serious, injuries to babies who have been placed in cribs, playpens or bassinets. According to the study, an average of 26 such injuries per day occurred during the time studied, with most (66 percent) involving falls, usually from cribs (83 percent) and most commonly affecting the head or neck (40 percent).

The study calls for creation and implementation of safety measures in the design and construction of cribs, playpens and bassinets. It also recommends that parents be told how to safely use such equipment and made aware of dangers they may pose.

Still, the authors note that parents and other caregivers use such equipment to keep babies out of harm's way when the caregiver isn't able to constantly watch the child.
The study’s authors contend that caregivers cannot be expected to anticipate and protect against all the kinds of harm a baby placed in a crib, playpen or bassinet might face.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission in December finally decided to ban drop sided cribs. The study found that many falls from cribs occurred when side rails either were left down or slid down when a child leaned on them.

We are oftentimes contacted by persons who were passengers involved in automobile accidents. Obviously, the passengers could not have done anything wrong but merely were in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. Sometimes the collision is caused by the host driver, who might even be a family member, and sometimes the collision is caused by the negligence of a third party. While all cases are factually specific, the innocent passenger may have a claim against either the driver of the vehicle they were in, the driver of the other vehicle, either or both.

The difficulty in representing passengers sometimes arises when the passenger is with a friend and does not want to file a claim against the friend or relative or other person they know well. And yet, if the damages sustained are significant, they may not have any choice because they need access to their insurance coverage to help with medical bills, lost wages, etc. As we have written before, passengers should have uninsured motorist coverage to protect themselves in any event but if no such coverage is available, the only recourse will be to consider claims against the host driver and/or any other third party that contributed to the cause of the collision.

Car accident cases are always factually unique and depending upon the facts of the case, there may or may not be liability against either or both drivers as stated. In some rare incidences, the passenger may not be able to recover, such as when they enter a vehicle after drinking themselves, knowing that their host driver was drinking too or in cases of intra-family immunity.

Any passenger in a car accident should confer with counsel if faced with the dilemma of potentially filing a claim against a host driver. Such claims sometimes are unavoidable for the reasons stated, but a early investigation is the best way to determine liability and responsibility for such damage claims.

We have previously written about the importance of uninsured motorist coverage, particularly in today’s economic times. In this article we wish to reemphasize how important it is that Georgia residents protect themselves with uninsured motorist coverage if at all possible within their family budget. The reason for this is because more and more motorists are driving with the minimum limits required by law, which is only $25,000.00 per person and many are driving with no insurance whatsoever, taking their chances with the law. The economy, of course, is the reason behind this, but the problem arises when an innocent third party is severely injured by the negligence of an uninsured or underinsured motorist.

If a motorist with minimum limits of coverage strikes another vehicle and hypothetically a passenger in that vehicle suffers a broken neck or back, clearly $25,000.00 will not even cover the medical expenses much less provide reimbursement for pain and suffering, lost wages and the permanent disability that may be caused by the negligence. Theoretically, of course, there is still a claim against the negligent driver, but if they only have $25,000.00 in coverage, they probably have no assets sufficient to satisfy any judgment. Under this set of circumstances, the only way the innocent person can protect themselves from those who are driving with either minimum or no insurance is to have uninsured motorist coverage.

The way uninsured motorist coverage works is that if you are in an accident as an innocent person and injured as a result of the negligence of either an uninsured or underinsured driver, then to the extent, if you have uninsured coverage as part of your own policy of insurance, you can have your own insurance company be responsible for the injuries and damages you sustained since you have paid for such coverage. In the hypothetical case posed, if the innocent victim had $300,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage, rather than being left with only $25,000.00 from the at fault driver, they would at least have access to $300,000.00 as compensation for their damages through their own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

What is ironic about all of this is that uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is quite inexpensive when compared to liability coverage which we all must have by law. Everyone who can afford to do so within the state of Georgia should confer with their insurance agent about getting uninsured motorist coverage. Insurance is really just that - insurance against the catastrophic claim, which we all hope never happens. If we are in an accident and severely injured and the person who injures us has little or no assets and the minimum limits or no coverage, our only recourse will be against our own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Accordingly, we would urge anyone who reads this to contact their insurance agent today and get some quotes for uninsured motorist coverage. If you can afford $100-500,000.00 in coverage (or even more) you might want to consider it because if you are ever in the unfortunate situation described you could be in an even worse situation at that time with absolutely no recourse to recover for your damages despite your total innocence in the premises.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled nearly 2 million baby monitors due to the risk of infant strangulation by the monitors’ electrical cords. The CPCS initiated the recall due to seven cases of infant strangulation in recent months.
The reported injuries and deaths include:

A 10 month-old Washington, D.C. infant died in March when she became tangled in the camera cord of a Summer infant monitor. The monitor camera had been attached to the top rail of her crib;

In November of last year, a 6 month-old South Carolinia baby was also killed by baby monitor cord strangulation after the monitor was placed on the changing table attached to his crib;

A baby in Pittsburg was found in his crib with a baby monitor camera cord wrapped around his neck. The monitor had been mounted to the wall, however, the infant was able to reach the cord. He was found early enough to escape serious injury.

To ensure that no more strangulation deaths occur, Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairperson Inez Tenenbaum issued a statement urging parents and caregivers to put at least 3 feet between any video or audio baby monitor cords and a child in a crib.

The recalled baby monitors were manufactured in China and sold at major retailers, mass merchandisers and children’s product stores nationwide between January 2003 and January 2011.

The manufacturer, Woonsocket, R.I. based Summer Infant, has recalled approximately 1.7 million baby monitors including 40 different models including color, handheld, and digital video monitors. All the recalled monitors are composed of two components: the cameras that are placed in the baby's room and the hand held device which relays sound and/or video to the caregiver.

Summer Infant is also recalling rechargeable batteries sold with “Slim and Secure Video Monitors” as the Consumer Product Safety Commission warns that the monitor batteries may overheat and rupture.

Nearly 58,000 “Slim and Secure Video Monitors” were sold at Babies R Us in 2009 and 2010. There are currently five reported cases of ruptured Summer Infant "Slim and Secure Video Monitor" batteries, though no injuries have been reported.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission website, www.cpsc.gov, states that as a consequence of the recall, Summer Infant has initiated a campaign to provide new product labels stating precautions and safety instructions for the electrical cords on all the recalled baby monitors.

Our firm is often contacted by those who have been victimized by a criminal act seeking advice as to whether they have a claim against the perpetrator of the crime. These cases come to us in a variety of different contexts. Sometimes a rape victim is interested in determining whether they have a claim against a hotel that negligently allowed the attack by a former employee or failed to provide adequate security with respect to the security of their room. We have had similar calls from rape victims seeking to file claims against apartment complexes where there were prior rapes (and a failure to notify the tenant/victim of the danger) and/or failure to provide adequate security at the complex. In other contexts, we may be contacted by those who have been victimized by drunk drivers or those who have been victimized by an assault and battery.

All “victim/tort” cases are factually unique, of course, and require an analysis of the facts and circumstances. Sometimes the criminal defendant may be judgment proof and a civil case against the perpetrator may be a complete waste of time from an economic standpoint. However, there sometimes can be third party liability in many of these cases. For example, even if the rapist primarily caused the damage, obviously, the negligent apartment owner and/or hotelier could be liable as well. What complicates these cases is that Georgia law now provides for apportionment of damages between those who may be jointly responsible for inflicting the damages. In a rape case, while it may be argued that the rapist caused virtually all the damages, obviously, the rapist may not have ever had the opportunity or access to the victim without the negligence of the owner/occupier of the property. The apportionment of dangers is now up to the jury depending on the facts of the case.

All victims of crimes obviously endure the trauma of being victimized by the crime. The criminal justice system provides very limited relief for damages in such cases. While there is mandatory restitution for property crimes, many criminal defendants do not have sufficient assets to make full restitution. Accordingly, in any case where a crime victim has the potential for a recovery in a particular case, they should consult with counsel experienced in such matters.

Fred Thompson, is a respected former Republican conservative Senator from Tennessee. He has had a stellar career as an attorney, Republican counsel to the Watergate Committee, a TV and movie star, and Senator. He recently penned an opinion piece for a Tennessee newspaper concerning the civil justice system, which we think should be shared.

Tennessee's current civil jury system doesn't need fixing

Written by
Fred Thompson

I have been asked why I want to take part in the discussions when the state legislature considers changes to our civil justice system in Tennessee. I am certainly aware of the ideological boxes that advocates like to put folks in when it comes to "tort reform."

Republicans and conservatives are supposed to be for anything called tort reform. However, I've never subscribed to these boxes. Not when I was in the U.S. Senate faced with these issues, and not now.

Some argue that the legislature should tell Tennessee juries that they can award only so much compensation in certain types of cases against certain types of defendants — regardless of the facts and circumstances of the case. I don't agree with this approach, and I don't think it's "conservative."

To me, conservatism shows due respect for a civil justice system that is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and is the greatest form of private regulation ever created by society. Conservatism is individual responsibility and accountability for damages caused, even unintentionally. It's about government closest to the people and equal justice with no special rules for anybody. It's also about respect for the common-law principle of right to trial by jury in civil cases that was incorporated into the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.

As someone who practiced in the courts of Tennessee for almost 30 years, I believe that a Tennessee jury of average citizens, after hearing all the facts, under the guidance of an impartial judge and limited by the constraints of our appellate courts, is more likely to render justice in a particular case than would one-size-fits-all rules imposed by government, either state or federal.

Our system "ain't broke." It is based upon tradition and common law and has provided justice to individuals and businesses alike.

The legislature has made adjustments to our tort law from time to time. For example, in 2008 a law was passed requiring plaintiffs to get a written statement from a medical professional saying that the lawsuit had merit, thereby reducing medical-malpractice suits. This was reasonable and appropriate. However, never has the legislature imposed a dollar limit in cases where damages and negligence have already been proven.

I recognize that several other states have imposed such rules. It's understandable. The pressure to do so is very strong. That does not make it right or sound policy. Tennessee does not make a habit of simply following a path that has been cut by others. Forty-one states have a broad-based income tax, and I am proud to say that Tennessee does not, and I believe it is much the better for it.

No system ever devised by man is or can ever be perfect. But our civil justice system has served us well, and any substantial changes to it should be made only if the change is needed, fair and beneficial to all Tennesseans. I hope that I can be helpful in discussions that we will soon be having on these important issues.

Traffic accidents are being reduced and lives are being saved by red light cameras according to a new study released today by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The study concludes that the cameras have reduced the rate of fatal crashes by 24 percent in 14 large cities that introduced red light cameras between 1996 and 2004.

In cities with red light cameras, the study also noted drops in all fatal crashes at intersections with traffic signals, not just those caused by running red lights.

The institute estimates that the reduction translates into 159 lives saved over five years in those cities. If all large cities had cameras, a total of 815 lives could have been saved, according to the study.

In 2009, 676 people were killed and an estimated 113,000 injured in red light crashes, according the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

The Institute reported that researchers have known for some time that the cameras reduce crashes, but there are now enough cities with cameras to study whether they affect fatal crashes. According to the study, red light cameras can be a cheaper and safer alternative to officers enforcing red light running.

The study looked at 99 cities with populations over 200,000. It compared two periods, 2004-2008, when the most recent fatal crash data were available, and 1992-1996, a period when the 14 cities had not begun red light camera programs.

Fatal red light crashes fell in most cities, but the rate fell 14 percent in the 48 cities without cameras and 35 percent in the 14 cities with cameras in the second period. The biggest drop in the rate of fatal crashes involving red light running was seen in Chandler, Ariz., where deaths dropped 79 percent.

Two cities, Raleigh, N.C., and Bakersfield, Calif., saw increases. The study concluded that the increases may be due to strong growth in those communities over two decades.