Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

When one purchases an automobile insurance policy from their insurance agent, the real reason that the policy is being purchased is to comply with Georgia law, which requires that all automobile drivers have minimum limits of liability insurance in the amount of $25,000.00 per person, $50,000.00 per accident. What this means is that if a driver is to drive lawfully under our laws, one must be financially responsible. If one runs a stop sign and injures another individual and breaks their leg, as an example, all drivers must have at least $25,000.00 in coverage which will provide some minimum coverage for the innocent victim of an automobile accident.

Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is optional coverage which can be purchased as a part of any liability insurance policy. It must be offered but it is not required to be purchased. However, all Georgia motorists should carefully examine such coverage because it can be extremely important in certain cases. The less insurance an at fault driver has and the greater the damage done by an accident, the greater the need for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

In the hypothetical case where an at fault driver runs a stop sign and seriously injures an innocent third party who did nothing wrong, if the at fault driver has the minimum limits of Georgia law, that being $25,000.00, imagine how little compensation will be available if the innocent victim breaks their neck, loses a leg, loses an eye or otherwise has a very serious injury. In such a situation there will be no compensation for the innocent victim if the at fault driver not only has limited coverage but is judgment proof due to a lack of personal assets. In the hypothetical case posed, the only possibility of obtaining adequate compensation for the damages suffered by the innocent victim is the availability of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

If one purchases stackable insurance coverage, the coverage will stack on top of whatever liability coverage is available. In our hypothetical, if the at fault driver only had $25,000.00 in liability coverage and the injured individual was prudent enough to purchase as part of their own coverage uninsured/underinsured coverage in the amount of $100,000.00, then this coverage would stack on top of the $25,000.00 for a total of $125,000.00 in available coverage. While such compensation might not be sufficient to adequately compensate someone with a broken back or neck or amputated limb, nonetheless, it is far greater compensation for the innocent victim than would be available in the absence of uninsured/underinsured insurance coverage.

Our Atlanta attorneys frequently litigate motorcycle accident cases. Our experience over many years shows that in almost all cases the motorcyclist was not at fault.
Recently, the Atlanta media reported a case in which a young man was fatally injured in the Little Five Points district when the scooter he was driving was hit from behind by a vehicle.

Allstate insurance company has conducted a study of the most dangerous intersections in Atlanta for motorcycle riders.

The data indicates that the intersection of 14th Street and Peachtree Street is the most dangerous intersection for motorcyclists in Fulton County.

Seven of 18 fatal motorcycle crashes -- 39 percent -- in Fulton County in 2009 occurred at that intersection. The Georgia Department of Transportation statistics show that there were 337 motorcycle crashes in Fulton County in 2009.

The other intersections in Fulton and Dekalb that had multiple motorcycle crashes in 2009 were:

-- Barge Road and Campbelltown Roads
-- Camp Creek Parkway and Welcome All Road
-- 10th St. and Piedmont Avenue
-- Bolton Road and Marietta Road
-- Buford Highway and Peachtree Street
-- Delmar Lane and Delmoor Court
-- Donald Lee Hollowell Parkway and Eugenia Avenue

In an effort to encourage safety for motorcycle and car drivers, Allstate is installing yellow diamond-shaped caution signs with the word "LOOK" and a silhouette of a motorcycle.

Other interesting facts revealed in the Allstate study are:

-- Most of the motorcycle crashes occurred in August.
-- Most occurred on a Saturday.
-- Most occurred between 5 and 7 p.m.

As teens begin summer vacations, a disturbing warning has been issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The latest data from U.S. Department of Transportation’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System show that the deadliest days of the year for teens ages 15-19 are in the months of May, June, July and August. During these four months, nearly twice as many teens died on the roads each day as compared to the rest of the year – for an average of nearly 16 deaths per day (15.9) – compared to an average of nearly nine deaths (8.8) per day during the year as a whole.

Individuals in the 16 to 24 age group have the highest traffic crash death rate in the country. Between 2005 and 2009 (the most recent year for which data are available), nearly 4,000 people from this age group were killed in crashes involving large trucks.

In an effort to raise awareness among teen drivers of these dangers, the U.S. DOT is spearheading a program to educate young drivers about the dangers of tractor-trailers and unsafe driving practices.

Kicking off the program, standing beside a 53-foot long tractor trailer in front of District of Columbia High School, officials representing the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the National Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS) and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) spoke to students from Maryland and the District of Columbia about the critical importance of driving safely around big trucks.

A fully loaded tractor trailer requires roughly twice the distance to stop that a passenger vehicle requires. In addition, tractor trailers have sizeable blind spots, otherwise known as “No Zones,” areas that motorist must avoid.

The program is emphasizing several simple rules: buckle up; don’t drink and drive; don’t speed; don’t text or use your phone; and steer clear of a truck’s blind spots.

We applaud this effort and urge all parents to stress the importance of these rules to your teenage drivers. Hopefully, with this type of effort, this dismal statistic can be reduced.

We read in the paper this week news articles about various traffic incidents involving pedestrians. In one case a drunk driver hit a pedestrian who was walking in a crosswalk at an intersection. The drunk driver apparently ran the stop sign running over and killing the pedestrian. In another case, again, a pedestrian was in a crosswalk and a driver simply failed to pay attention to the situation and ran over the pedestrian, seriously injuring the victim.

Big cities are dangerous because there are many cars and many pedestrians occupying the same spaces. Unfortunately, pedestrian accidents will occur and typically because it is a car verses the human body, the individual is seriously injured and/or killed. Pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks and cars should always yield to them but reality teaches us that this is not always the case. When a drunk driver is involved, of course, all bets are off.

As is true of any other automobile collision or car wreck cases, the at fault driver will be responsible for the damages inflicted upon the innocent pedestrian. Unfortunately, in many cases, the at fault driver has either no insurance or limited insurance and the pedestrian’s chances of recovery therefore are dependent upon the financial responsibility of the driver involved in the incident. If the pedestrian has uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, this can also be a potential revenue for recovery in any pedestrian injury case.

As is true of any other car accident case, in any case in which a pedestrian is seriously injured, counsel should be contacted as soon as possible so that eyewitnesses can be interviewed while their memories are fresh. The more serious the incident the greater the need for consultation with counsel as a thorough investigation while facts are fresh may be necessary in order to protect long term lost wages and provide for the payment of medical expenses.

We read in the paper this week about a tragedy involving a motorcyclist who was struck and killed by a drunk driver. According to news accounts, the drunk driver was completely at fault in the incident and struck the innocent motorcycle rider from the rear. Regrettably, this case is indicative of the dangers to which all motorcycle riders are exposed. Such dangers are exponentially increased, obviously, when a drunk driver is involved.
We read in the paper this week about a tragedy involving a motorcyclist who was struck and killed by a drunk driver. According to news accounts, the drunk driver was completely at fault in the incident and struck the innocent motorcycle rider from the rear. Regrettably, this case is indicative of the dangers to which all motorcycle riders are exposed. Such dangers are exponentially increased, obviously, when a drunk driver is involved and as it appears in this case, the victim was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time occupying the same space and traveling down the same road as the drunk driver. The tragic results obviously were caused by the drunk driver’s negligence. Hopefully, the driver will be fully prosecuted and sent to jail. While jail time will be little solace to the victim’s family, nonetheless, it is necessary that there be a vigorous prosecution in all such cases in order to deter such actions by others.
The tragic results here obviously were caused by the drunk driver’s negligence. Hopefully, the driver will be fully prosecuted and sent to jail. While jail time will be little solace to the victim’s family, nonetheless, it is necessary that there be a vigorous prosecution in all such cases in order to deter such actions by others.

Over the years our firm has handled many cases involving serious motorcycle accident cases. Because so little protection is afforded to the motorcycle rider, in any case involving a collision between a motorcycle and an automobile, typically the motorcycle rider is seriously injured and/or killed. In the case that happened this week here in Atlanta, the motorcycle rider was killed by the drunk driver. We do not know if the drunk driver has sufficient assets to pay the damages caused by the loss of life of the victim/rider but hopefully there will be sufficient insurance proceeds available to compensate the family for its loss

The article in today’s paper indicated that the accused, a man by the name of Darrin Murphy, had a prior DUI offense on his record. The victim had just graduated with a degree in Public Policy from Georgia Tech and had only been an American citizen for just three months. He was born in London and obviously was a bright young man with an extremely bright future ahead of him. It is regrettable that Mr. Murphy chose to drink and drive and it is clear that he is facing a long jail sentence having been charged with first degree homicide, following too closely and driving under the influence. Because he is a repeat offender, he is likely to get very little sympathy from the Court.

We offer our condolences to the family of Liam Rattray, the innocent victim in this case. Regrettably, according to news accounts, Mr. Rattray is not the only motorcycle rider killed this week in metropolitan Atlanta. According to news accounts out of Upson County, a father was killed and his son seriously injured when they were struck head on by a drunk driver in a pickup truck.

A note of caution to our motorcycle rider friends. Wear your helmets and be careful this summer. Its dangerous out there.

Approximately 2 years ago we published an article on the dangers of unsafe and dangeous glass products. We re-print this article because of the tragic death of a young woman who fell to her death this week after falling through a window at a hotel in downtown Atlanta. This accident was preventable but occurred because safety glass was apparently not properly used. In today's modern age, with the known dangers involved, this is inexcusable. Our earlier blog entry is posted again in view of this tragedy:

"We are continually disturbed when we hear reports of persons injured by unsafe glass--decades after the need for "safety glazing" material (safety glass) was recognized. Our serious personal injury lawyers have delved deeply into the history of glass injuries in representing clients who have suffered what can be life-threatening injuries from unsafe glass, in premises liability cases tried successfully. We hope to share what we have learned about these dangerous products so that future injuries from dangerous glass can be prevented.

For more than thirty (30) years, the dangers of using glass that leaves sharp, jagged edges when it breaks has been known.

In a 1972 opinion, one court discussed the dangers of glass injuries from glass that was not "safety glass": “‘Purposeful footsteps, impact, the harsh, shattering crash of jagged spears of glass falling and disintegrating on the floor, and disabling and disfiguring injuries or death -- this sequence of events is acted out, according to safety experts, in 40,000 American homes annually.’” Moody v. Southland Inv. Corp., 126 Ga. App. 225, 230, 190 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1972) (quoting Wolfstone, “Glass Door Accidents,” 14 Am. Jur. Trials 101, 105).

The 1972 Moody case concerned a patio door made of non-tempered glass that shattered and injured the plaintiff. The Court discussed testimony from experts that “serious injuries are caused by nontempered glass,” and that “[t]empered glass is harder, and it won’t break as easily, and then when it breaks, it doesn’t come in sharp, jagged pieces, where you are liable to get cut.” Id. at 229, 190 S.E.2d at 581. The Court also observed that “tempered glass was available for use on the door [in question] in 1967, when it was first installed.” Id. at 228, 190 S.E.2d at 580.

For many decades, manufacturers, builders, and architects have known that “plate glass” which breaks in a sharp jagged way. Much of this information has been summarized in a Report in one of our cases prepared by Phillip L. Graitcer, DMD, MPH, who has been an Adjunct Professor at the Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta, and is the former Director of the International Unit of the “National Center for Injury Prevention and Control” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

To summarize some of the major points of this Report, at least by 1962, a national study group began studying injuries from broken glass in doors. Nationwide publicity of this problem followed, and performance standards were developed, such as ANSI Z-97.1, for safety glazing that, when impacted, was less likely to cause serious injury. A manufacturer’s trade group had developed a mandatory requirement for safety glazing in sliding aluminum doors, and proposed in the mid-1960s that all model building codes require safety glazing in glass used in doors.

By 1968, all three model building codes had adopted these requirements. In 1969, a Consumer Safety Glazing Committee was formed to promote use of safety glazing materials, and it advocated a Model Safety Glazing Bill. By 1970, states including Georgia had enacted safety glazing laws prohibiting use of anything but safety glazing materials in door glass. O.C.G.A. § 8-2-90, et seq.

In 1963 the Federal Housing Administration began requiring safety glazing in most sliding doors and other locations in new houses insured by FHA loans. Federal regulations, 16 C.F.R. part 1201 et seq., were developed that required safety glazing in exit doors and other “hazardous locations” in 1977.

Moreover, by 1963 and continuing thereafter, articles and pamphlets began to be disseminated describing the dangers of non-safety glazing material. Such articles appeared in education and other publications. Moreover, school risk managers consider glass in doors an injury risk.

Further, because ordinary glass breaks with sharp fragments, it is much more likely to cause serious injury than safety glazing. Glass used in or near exit doors is one on the most common source of injuries, although numerous glass products made of unsafe glass have continually led to serious injury and wrongful death.

It is shocking that, in a new century, dangerous products and buildings using something other than safety glazing continue to injure and kill unsuspecting children and adults. This is a public health hazard that we will continue working to stop."