Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

A divorce is traumatic in and of itself but becomes particularly tragic when either during the divorce or after its conclusion the wrongful death of a child occurs. In such circumstances, the wrongful death claim belongs to the parents jointly. Either one, therefore, has the right to bring the wrongful death claim but if one proceeds unilaterally in doing so, they do so in a fiduciary capacity, meaning that if they ever recover anything, they must hold the monies in trust until such time as a Court can apportion any monies awarded between the divorced parents based on their level of support with the child, their interaction with the child and other equitable factors.

Under Georgia law, if a child is killed due to the wrongful acts of a third party, such as a drunk driver, or a trucking company, the cause of action vests in the parents of the child. If the parents are in the middle of a divorce, this does not change the law. If the parents are already divorced, the law remains the same. In some such circumstances, both divorced parents get their lawyers and there is a race to the courthouse to see who files the lawsuit first. If one beats the other to the punch, the other may seek to join the case by formally intervening in the action. Since both spouses have a right to participate in the action, the difficulty this can cause is logistical because two separate law firms could be acting on behalf of the parents conducting redundant investigations and also having different views strategically as to how the case should be prosecuted and pursued. This can create a legal quagmire causing difficulties not only for both parents but also for their lawyers.

Insofar as is possible, the parties should work cooperatively together in pursuing a wrongful death claim of a child. If one proceeds all the way through a settlement or a jury verdict and ultimately obtains money, as indicated, that money must be held in trust and subject to equitable division by the court, unless the parties can agree among themselves how the money should be divided between them. While it might be assumed that a 50/50 split of any such recovery is the norm, there are many circumstances whereby such a split would not be just nor fair, such as situations where a father has abandoned a child and/or has failed to pay child support. As indicated above, these cases are particularly tragic and often difficult for all the parties. If a divorce has occurred, hopefully the parties will be mature enough to work together to pursue a common goal. If not, the attorneys for the respective parties will have to decide how to best work together to pursue that goal with an understanding that if there is ever a recovery, and a dispute over how the monies are to apportioned, that dispute must be submitted to a trial court for equitable apportionment.

It is not uncommon in our practice to be asked to represent clients in automobile cases who have pre-existing conditions. The closer in time to an accident the pre-existing condition is, the more difficult it is to separate the proverbial “wheat from the chaff” and to prove that the client’s problems arising out of the current accident were either caused by that accident and/or were aggravated by it. While it is not necessary, as a matter of law, to prove that the new injury was solely caused by the new accident because compensation is available for aggravation of pre-existing injuries, the difficulty is that the defense can always argue that the new accident did not cause any new, nor aggravating injury, but that the old injury simply remained. The proof problems caused by such cases are very difficult and oftentimes clients do not appreciate the fact that juries are very skeptical of claims where the pre-existing injury is documented in medical records and appears either identical to or very similar to the injury complained of immediately following the new accident.

Lawyers make decisions about the value of any personal injury claim based on the evidence in any particular case. The evidence in pre-existing injury cases is often critical because if a medical record shows that a client already had a particular injury and had/or received medical care for an earlier injury, and then they are involved in another accident, the issue will be whether they had recovered from that injury, whether they were asymptomatic at the time of the new injury, or whether they were still suffering from the lingering effects of the prior injury. As might be imagined, all of these factors enter into case evaluation. Moreover, when it comes to a discussion of “proximate cause,” that being proving that the new accident actually caused a new injury or aggravated an earlier one, the calculus becomes extremely complex. Georgia juries, being inherently conservative, oftentimes return defense verdicts in cases where the pre-existing injury was identical to the newly claimed injury and the treatment for that old injury mirrored the new injury treatment in substantially similar respects.

Obviously, all cases must be judged on the evidence for that particular case as all such cases are factually specific. Nonetheless, there are some unique challenges that arise in the context of pre-existing injuries.

As lawyers we are often consulted by prospective clients inquiring about whether they “have a case.” Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. Oftentimes those who do not have cases are themselves guilty of contributory negligence. In Georgia, this is a very difficult problem to overcome because typically juries are not as likely to award damages to someone who substantially contributed to their own injuries due to their own negligence.

A classic case of contributory negligence is where a motorist is approaching an intersection and decides to turn and while so doing is struck by a motorist coming from the opposite direction. While the speed of the oncoming motorist may have contributed to the collision, the failure to yield, obviously, is part of the equation. Had the client not failed to yield, notwithstanding the speed of the oncoming vehicle, the collision may have been avoided. If the speed was so great that the client understandably miscalculated whether they had time to make a turn, obviously, is a factually specific issue. However, in the hypothetical posed, one can readily see that juries might conclude that the motorist who failed to yield substantially contributed to their own injuries and therefore the speeding motorist might not be held accountable for the full extent of any damages sustained.

In Georgia, contributory negligence claims are submitted to the jury under instruction that if the plaintiff or the person seeking damages was themselves fifty percent (50%) or more responsible for the cause of any given accident then they recover nothing, no matter what their injuries are. If they are less than fifty percent (50%) negligent, they recover their damages reduced by a comparison of their negligence with the defendant who has been sued. Thus, if a jury were to conclude that the plaintiff was forty percent (40%) negligent then they would be entitled to recover sixty percent (60%) of their damages, whatever they might be.

In any case where liability is contested and the possibility of a contributory negligence defense exists, such a potential client should confer with experience counsel as soon as possible so that the liability aspects of the case can be properly investigated. If the contributory negligence can be eliminated as a potential defense, the chances of the injured client receiving full compensation for their damages is greatly increased.

Unfortunately, in the normal course of our law practice, we have encountered clients who have sustained serious burn injuries. These cases are always extremely painful for clients and oftentimes results in permanent disfigurement. Indeed, a burn injury is one of the most painful injuries anyone can sustain and unfortunately we have seen them arise in a variety of contexts, whether it be gasoline fires after automobile accidents, accidents within the home due to defective products and/or chemical burns sustained on the job.

One of the complications of burn injury cases is trying to make sure that one has an accurate assessment of the future. While plastic surgery at present can eliminate some of the acute signs of injury, many times plastic surgery will be needed in the future. Oftentimes, despite the best care of plastic surgeons, permanent disfigurement may remain.

In assessing damages in a serious burn injury case, counsel must confer with the plastic surgeons responsible for the care and treatment of the client/patient to make sure that the client’s prognosis is well understood. The degree of permanent disfigurement, obviously, must be taken into consideration in assessing the damages for such clients as well as the impact on their overall quality of life and, usually, the high amount of medical expenses involved.

One of the very interesting parts of handling such cases is seeing the strength and character of those unfortunate enough to sustain such injuries. We have witnessed many serious injury clients handle themselves with grace, fortitude and strength of character when faced with a serious injury. Remarkably, many of these people are extremely courageous and show tremendous depth of character when overcoming such difficulties. It is a pleasure to help such clients in such difficult circumstances.

We have written prior entries in our blog about the importance of uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage. The importance of such coverage was underscored this week when we were contacted by clients who had been hit by driver of a stolen vehicle. This is a classic case where the at fault driver will not have insurance coverage. In this particular case the innocent victim caught up in this collision did not have uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Obviously, the stolen vehicle had no insurance coverage which provided coverage for the thieves. Thus, we have a case where there is no insurance available to address our client’s medical bills and expenses. Because the medical bills are in excess of $500,000.00 and growing, obviously, the injuries attendant to such high expenses were extremely serious as well. The client will be permanently impaired for life. The tragedy is that had the client had uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, they could of at least had some measure of protection in this type of case.

The importance of this type of coverage arises in cases where the at fault driver has no insurance. Drunk drivers typically have no insurance. Teenagers joyriding in stolen cars have no insurance. People fleeing from the police at high speeds have no insurance typically. Drug addicts have no insurance and many people who are faced with today’s economic hardships let their insurance lapse and continue to drive. In short, there are a significant number of drivers on the road who (if they hit an innocent third party and cause an accident entirely because of their fault), will have no resources to provide coverage for the innocent victim. Therefore, the only way the victim can protect him or herself is to purchase uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage in advance, at the time they purchase their own liability coverage.

We would urge all members of the public to carefully review the Declaration page of their policies. We are all required by law to carry liability insurance on our vehicles. This coverage protects, the person that we injure through our own negligent acts. However, in circumstances where we are injured by the acts of a third party, unless we have uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage, we cannot protect ourselves from a case where the at fault driver has no coverage. As indicated by the case which was presented to us this week, this tragedy is compounded. When a person is seriously injured, permanently disabled for life and their life is utterly destroyed. They will never work again and if they are lucky enough to continue to live, they are going to be in need of medical care for the rest of their lives. And yet, there is no insurance anywhere to provide compensation for the innocent victim’s staggering losses. As lawyers, this is a very difficult situation because there is nothing we can do to help this person obtain recovery from the at fault driver. All that can be done in such cases typically is to make sure that the criminal authorities to put the offender in jail, but again, this provides little or no justice for the innocent victim and certainly no compensation for their injuries and damages.

Many clients choose their personal injury attorneys by watching the television or looking at billboards. Unfortunately, this does not always result in a client choosing the right attorney for his or her case. The best way to choose an attorney for a personal injury case is to make sure that the attorney selected is competent, professional and experienced. It is also important that the client determine that the lawyer being chosen has the ability to present the case to a jury if the case cannot be resolved by settlement and compromise.

Personal injury lawyers who most successfully represent their clients are those who are capable of presenting a case to a jury in an effective and professional manner. These lawyers are called Trial Lawyers. Personal injury lawyers who are Trial Lawyers are those who are most likely to get the best settlement results for their client in lieu of a trial. This is because insurance companies know that if they do not offer these lawyers fair and reasonable settlement offers that the lawyer will then present the case to a jury and get even more money. This is why they have to pay the value of the claim rather than trying to settle it cheap with a lawyer who does not know how to present the case to a jury. Accordingly, any client in a personal injury case should make sure that their attorney is capable of presenting their claims to a jury in a professional and competent manner and that they have experience trying cases.

Trial Lawyers always do a better job than those who do not know how to present a case to a jury or who have little or no experience doing so. Accordingly, clients would be well advised to ask how many jury trial their attorney has participated in as lead counsel so that they are comfortable with the fact that their attorney is capable of effectively representing their interests. Again, while the vast majority of all cases do settle, settlement amounts are influenced by a lawyer’s ability to effectively advocate claims. The more experienced the Trial Lawyer, typically, the better the settlement results in a personal injury case.

We have written before about the unique provisions of Georgia law in the wrongful death context. If, due to the negligence of a third party, an innocent person is killed, the offending party is liable in damages for compensation for the “full value of the decedent.” The full value of the life of the decedent is comprised of both economic and non-economic components. Anytime some one is killed, they can no longer earn and labor and therefore all of the money they may have earned over the remaining portion of their working life has been taken from them. In addition, their one life to live has been taken from them and the non-economic intangible value of life itself, therefore, must be determined. Under Georgia law, both determinations are made from the perspective of the decedent, not from the perspective of the decedent’s family or surviving relatives.

The measure of damages for a wrongful death case in Georgia is, again, the “enlightened conscience” of fair and impartial jurors seeking to do justice in a particular case. By analyzing all the available evidence to determine both the economic and non-economic damages sustained in a particular case, jurors are faced with the task of determining the full value of the life of the decedent based on what the decedent lost at the time of his or her death. This can be a daunting task and therefore counsel must assist the jury in analyzing the various components of the decedent’s life, including their work history, their relationship with family members, the state of health, their age and other demographic factors. The younger the victim, the longer the life expectancy and therefore the greater the loss. While those who are negligently killed in the latter part of their lives also lose the balance of what the future held for them, the loss presumably would be less than a younger person because of the age difference. In either circumstance, however, the calculation to be made by the jury is to provide fair and reasonable compensation for the loss of life.

It is extremely difficult to quantify damages in a personal injury case. While medical bills can be totalled and lost wages calculated, trying to calculate damages for pain and suffering is a different matter. When one is out of work for months at a time suffering from back pain, as an example, the question is: how does one go about trying to determine what would constitute fair and reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering attendant to the injury? The longer one suffers, the greater the damage. The more excruciating the pain, the greater the damage. Because pain and suffering is subjective, however, it is often difficult to determine what damages would be fair in a particular case.

Many attorneys try to quantify pain and suffering based on a unit or hourly approach. If one is in pain and suffering sixteen hours out the day (assuming sleep for the other eight hours), what would constitute fair compensation for the extent of the pain and suffering: $10.00 an hour, $20.00 an hour, minimum wage or some other calculation?

In Georgia, in a personal injury context, the measure of damages for pain and suffering is the “enlightened conscience” of fair and impartial jurors. In other words, there is no measuring stick, per se, but rather a jury must determine money damages based on the totality of the circumstances involved in a particular case, that is what they believe would constitute fair and reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering element of a personal injury case.

In order to maximize damages in a personal injury case, it is important to show what the plaintiff could do before and after the injury, the extent of the disabling injury involved, the impact on daily life and the extent to which the victim was innocent in the premises and had the pain and suffering subjected upon them due to the negligence of the defendant. Oftentimes, the greater the liability the more willing the jury is to be generous in its pain and suffering calculations.

Because all personal injury cases are different, obviously, it is necessary for counsel for any client to carefully evaluate all of the factors involved in determining how to best present their client’s case to a jury in the event it cannot be settled. While reasonable minds may always differ as to what is fair and reasonable compensation in a particular case, if the case cannot be settled, the matter will have to be presented to a jury, who will then use their “enlightened consciences” to make such an award.

We have been contacted many times concerning tort claims against the U. S. Postal Service. Typically these involve personal injury claims arising out of motor vehicle collisions where a postal truck of some kind is involved. Sometimes it is the mail handler delivering the mail and sometimes it is a large tractor-trailer delivering mail between districts. In either circumstance, where one sustains an injury as a result of the negligent acts of a Postal Service employee, it is necessary that the claimant file a Standard Form 95 with the proper representatives of the Postal Service as a pre-condition to any suit that might later be brought. The reason is because all claims against the Postal Service are governed by the terms and procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which are mandatory and jurisdictional. In short, if one does not comply with the terms of the Federal Torts Claim Act, the claim will be essentially forfeited.

39 C.F.R. part 912 provides that a claim should be submitted pre-suit to the Post Office where the accident occurred an/or to the Postal Service District Office where the accident occurred and also to the Chief Counsel National Tort Center in St. Louis, Missouri. 39 C.F.R. part 912 describes the information that must be included in the claim presentation, which again, must be filed pre-suit. Once the claim is filed with the Postal Service Tort Claims Division, then in that event, six months must elapse before suit can be filed. If the claim is denied and/or not ruled upon within six months, the claimant may file suit in Federal District Court but may only name the United States of America as the defendant.

Anyone who suffers an injury at the hands of a negligent Postal Service employee, whether by way of a motor vehicle accident or otherwise, should confer with counsel who has experience with the Federal Tort Claims Act. Again, there are jurisdictional pre-suit filing requirements that must be followed otherwise the claim can be lost due to a failure to follow the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

It is well known that large tractor-trailer trucks are very difficult to stop even when being operated prudently. Because of the weights on large tractor-trailers, if a tractor-trailer needs to suddenly stop for whatever reason, it takes much longer for the truck to stop than it would for the ordinary passenger vehicle. It is for this reason that regulations exist requiring trucks to slow down in inclement weather. Wet roads result in greater stopping distances for large tractor-trailer vehicles and thus, if it is raining, a prudent truck driver should slow his truck down one-third (1/3) of the normal speed. This is required by regulation and is required by common sense and safety considerations for the motoring public. Regrettably, far too often, truck drivers because of the need to deliver their loads and due to the economic pressures upon them, fail to slow down during inclement weather with the predictable result that accidents, which otherwise could have been avoided, occur with greater frequency.

All drivers regardless of whether they are operating passenger vehicles or tractor-trailer rigs need to slow down in inclement weather, whether it be wet weather, snowy weather or a mixture of sleet and rain. The fact is that such conditions are known to be dangerous to all drivers. Commercial drivers having a special license and being professionally employed to driver large trucks, which are harder to stop, have an extra special duty of care under such circumstances. Regrettably, we have seen first hand here at our firm far too many cases where innocent third parties are seriously injured or killed when truck drivers fail to slow down during inclement weather thus, causing significant carnage on the road when they plow into other cars impacted by their negligence. There is a reason we see signs that say “Speed Kills.” Speed during inclement weather kills more often thus, the need to slow down and the rationale for the regulations requiring a reduction in speed by one-third (1/3) of that typically in place.

In serious injury cases, usually arising from tractor-trailer collisions or automobile accidents, it is not uncommon to see clients with serious back injuries which create a host of physical and mental problems for the innocent victim. If someone is rear-ended by a tractor-trailer, as an example, and suffers a significant back injury requiring a fusion or other surgical procedure, it is not uncommon at all for such a client to develop leg problems, hip problems and other associated maladies. The mental stress and emotional damage caused by permanent and intractable pain is part of the injury as well. In the unfortunate cases where clients lose their legs or suffer traumatic amputations, the injury to the leg can result in an injury to the back and the hips. In short, a vicious cycle is involved in these cases which is why it is necessary that the injured claimant have the best possible medical assistance possible.

Many times it is difficult for the medical community to establish the exact cause of pain for a particular client. Sometimes it is a herniated disc in the back, sometimes it is nerve root impingement, sometimes it is generalized nerve damage and sometimes it is simply a chronic pain syndrom due to the trauma to the spinal column. As stated, typically, the injured individual with the bad back will have problems with their leg and hips which, of course, affects all of their daily activities, not to mention their work, if they are still able to work. For these reasons, it is vital that the injured individual receive medical treatment from a Board certified orthopaedist, orthopaedic surgeon, neurologist or neurosurgeon. Depending upon the facts of the case, the mechanism of injury, the location of the injury or otherwise, one or more of these specialists may be involved as well as physical therapists. Treatment may begin with physical therapy and epidural steroid injections, but in many cases ends in surgery, particularly for the more serious back injuries.

Unless one suffers from a significant back injury, it is hard for others to truly appreciate just how disabling such injuries can be. In personal injury cases involving serious back injuries it is sometimes wise to obtain a Function Capacity Evaluation to demonstrate objectively just how the injury affects the injured individuals ability to function at performing daily tasks, whether it be stooping, lifting, bending or otherwise. Such cases are very sad, typically, because they do involve a significant impact on the individual’s lifestyle and can affect not only their work, their marriage, their family, but their overall quality of life. Sadly, such injuries oftentimes are permanent and the impact of an accident can affect someone for the rest of their natural lives, which is why it is necessary to work these cases up very carefully with the long term interest of the client being closely monitored throughout the recovery process.

As we have written before, it is becoming increasingly necessary that plaintiff’s counsel be prepared to attack the veracity and credibility of so-called “independent” experts in personal injury cases. Insurance companies and defense law firms routinely retain medical “experts” to testify that plaintiffs are not injured at all or have only suffered minor injuries. They do this by examining diagnostic tests and/or by offering testimony that the test results do not substantiate a traumatic injury. Such testimony can be extremely misleading because oftentimes a clinical diagnosis made by a treating physician is much more reliable than a so-called independent review by someone who has never seen the plaintiff much less examined them. Nonetheless, such testimony is dangerous and can often be effective if the witness offering the testimony has a good medical pedigree, as they often do, and presents a good appearance before the jury. This makes the cynical use of so-called experts extremely dangerous because by paying a fee for the so-called “independent” opinion, the jury can be mislead and an innocent victim of a negligent act can be victimized again and denied the right to fair and reasonable compensation for their injuries.

“Independent” experts oftentimes testify in back injury cases as an example of this problem. They testify that an examination of radiological films proves to them that the “back injured” claimant was not injured at all. Many experts will testify that herniated discs in a back cannot be caused by trauma or that trauma did not cause the injury complained of, etc. Such testimony is tantamount to junk science and is completely unreliable but the problem is that many jurors do not recognize this. Jurors receive sworn testimony and based on their lack of medical training actually oftentimes believe that the so-called “independent expert” is, in fact, independent when nothing could further from the truth. Thus, to be effective in representing a personal injury claimant with a bad back or neck case, the best way to go about doing so is to attack the so-called independence of the expert. Many of these witnesses receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation each year from the insurance industry because they know where there bread is buttered and they know what is expected of them, which is to testify that the claimant is not injured and/or that they are malingering. This cynical approach to dispensing justice in a personal injury context is disheartening, frustrating and at times exasperating but, nonetheless, it is part and parcel of the landscape in our society. All one can do is fight against it and hope that fair and impartial jurors will see through such cynicism and will disregard the testimony of junk science experts who, for their own secondary gain, perniciously seek to influence their verdicts.

Increasingly we are seeing a trend that started many years ago but continues today. This involves the use of so-called “independent” experts to provide testimony in personal injury cases to the effect that the claimant has suffered no injury at all or, if any injury, only a minor one. Insurance companies employ so-called “independent” medical examiners to review radiology films, many times, so that a radiologist can testify that based upon an examination of the film, there is no evidence of trauma seen, thus the plaintiff could not have been injured. Of course, a radiologist cannot see damaged nerve endings or herniated discs on an x-ray film but this does not stop these so-called “independent” experts from providing junk science medical testimony for the jury’s consumption.

This trend is extremely troubling and has been decried by our courts in the past. In a well reasoned opinion written by the Georgia Court of Appeals over twelve (12) years ago, Justice Blackburn wrote “I write separately to point out a systematic problem in the general use of “independent” experts in the litigation process. This problem, while not limited thereto, is greatest where insurance companies use “independent” medical expert opinions to deny or limit payment of claims. The inherent weakness of this process is that the insurance company which controls the flow of business to “independent” medical services providers has a financial interest in the negative finding of such provider...”.

Insurance companies have a huge financial interest in making sure that cliams are not paid. One way to do this is to hire a so-called “independent” experts. It is disheartening to see a medical doctor testify for money paid that someone is not injured when the doctor, of course, has no way of knowing whether such is the case. Insurance companies typically get what they pay for which is a medical opinion that the claimant is either not injured at all or shows no objective evidence of injury based upon an examination of diagnostic films or other tests. Such testimony is extremely dangerous because it appeals to the cynicism of jurors who may believe that someone seeking money is simply out for secondary gain and is not legitimately injured. While there are fraud claims and while there are claims of embellishment and exaggeration, in many legitimate claims, nonetheless, these so-called “independent” experts are providing testimony that serves no other purpose but to deny justice to those who have been legitimately injured and are in need of adequate and just compensation for their injuries.

As we shall blog about it in future entries, the best way to attack this problem is to attack the hired gun witness by showing their financial interest in the proceedings and their inherent bias. By proving that the so-called “independent” expert is not independent at all, hopefully, a jury will understand that paid for testimony is not the most reliable evidence one could hope to rely upon in a personal injury case.

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.

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.

U.S. Department of Transportation recently released figures revealing that the number and rate of traffic fatalities in 2010 fell to the lowest levels since 1949, despite a significant increase in the number of miles Americans drove during the year.

This decrease is below the record drop reported in 2009.

In a press release U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, stated "Last year's drop in traffic fatalities is welcome news and it proves that we can make a difference." He said "Still, too many of our friends and neighbors are killed in preventable roadway tragedies every day. We will continue doing everything possible to make cars safer, increase seat belt use, put a stop to drunk driving and distracted driving and encourage drivers to put safety first."

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) early projections, the number of traffic fatalities fell three percent between 2009 and 2010, from 33,808 to 32,788. Since 2005, fatalities have dropped 25 percent, from a total of 43,510 fatalities in 2005.

The same estimates also project that the fatality rate will be the lowest recorded since 1949, with 1.09 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, down from the 1.13 fatality rate for 2009. The decrease in fatalities for 2010 occurred despite an estimated increase of nearly 21 billion miles in U.S. vehicle miles traveled.

A regional breakdown showed the greatest drop in fatalities occurred in the Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska, where they dropped by 12 percent. Arizona, California and Hawaii had the next steepest decline, nearly 11 percent.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has taken a comprehensive approach to reducing roadway fatalities by promoting strong traffic safety laws coupled with high-visibility enforcement and through rigorous vehicle safety programs and public awareness campaigns.

In 2009, the U.S. DOT launched a highly visible national anti-distracted driving campaign modeled on other successful NHTSA efforts to reduce fatalities, such as its "Over the Limit. Under Arrest." and "Click It Or Ticket" campaigns to curb drunk driving and increase seat belt use.

The U.S. DOT has launched a dedicated website, Distraction.gov, to provide the public with a comprehensive source of information on distracted driving. DOT has also hosted two national summits devoted to the issue, crafted sample legislation which states can use to adopt distracted driving laws, and initiated pilot law enforcement programs in Hartford, Conn., and Syracuse, N.Y.

NHTSA has also taken action to improve vehicle safety. The agency has urged automakers to swiftly and voluntarily report safety defects to keep the driving public safe. NHTSA has also encouraged the development and use of technologies to prevent crashes, such as electronic stability control, forward collision warning and lane departure warning systems.

NHTSA also crafted an updated 5-star rating system in 2010, which established more rigorous crash-test standards and began providing consumers with improved information about which cars perform best in collisions.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has signed a new law requiring all children under the age of 7 to be placed in booster seats unless they are over 40 pounds in weight and/or stand more than 4 feet 9 inches tall. The new law will go into effect this coming January to give parents time to purchase booster seats if needed. The reason for the new law: Protection of our children. Authorities have tracked injuries to children over the last five years and have determined that the vast majority of children injured in car accidents were injured because they were not properly restrained. In short, children were receiving preventable injuries and hopefully this law will assist in decreasing those numbers.

Until the passage of this law, children under the age of six had to be placed in a booster seat. Again, statistical evidence showed that children between the ages of 6 and 7 needed the same protection and thus the new law is designed to provide that for them. Even if a parent uses a booster seat, it is important that a proper product be utilized because failure to use a good product can still result in injury. Indeed, there are many product liability cases that have been filed over the years against the manufacturers of children’s restrain systems as well as restraint systems in automobiles utilized for adults. The mere fact that a restraint system is used will not guarantee that someone will not sustain injuries. This new law hopefully will dramatically increase the chances of child safety and decrease the chances of preventable injuries.

It is amazing to watch television commercials advertising lawyer services for personal injury cases. One often sees a client holding a fist full of cash praising their lawyer for securing a large cash settlement. The client is typically shown smiling and happily talking about how much money they received from their personal injury claim. These ads have often surprised me because it is typically only in the very serious case that clients receive large settlement amounts and in those cases, they usually deserve the amounts of the settlement because their injuries are typically horrendous. It is hard to imagine our clients smiling about these matters because typically large cash settlements mean that the victims have suffered life altering and permanent injuries from which they will never recover.

The insurance lobby has been successful in portraying personal injury claimants not as innocent victims, but rather as those seeking “jackpot justice.” The propaganda is that many people are not injured at all, they simply want money. Of course, given the human condition, there are always those who will embellish their injuries and who may be motivated by secondary gain. The propaganda is an insult to those victims who are unfortunate enough to be seriously injured by the negligence of a third party.

Our experience has proven over and over again that those who receive significant cash settlements are those who deserve such an award. A child has been killed, a leg has been lost, a back broken. These are hardly the kinds of injuries that result in people smiling about money. Usually money is inadequate to compensate the victim for the loss of their independence and a loss of the lifestyle that they experienced prior to injury. Thus, the myth of “jackpot justice” is just that, a myth. The truly deserving clients are not seeking money simply to inherit a windfall from a tragedy. Rather they are seeking justice, which can only be monetary compensation to provide some level of compensation for that which they have lost, which is usually the most precious gift of all, good health. Obviously, if someone’s health is impaired significantly enough their livelihood can be endangered and their earning capacity greatly diminished. Indeed, in many of our more serious cases, our clients can never work again and lose their career, their livelihood, their home, their credit and virtually everything they once had because of the severity of their injuries.

We reject the premise that personal injury victims are always seeking “jackpot justice.” Insurance companies will aways promote such propaganda because it serves their bottom line interests. Those attorneys who advertise with smiling clients full of cash in their hands unfortunately promote such stereotypical views that are then exploited by the insurance industry. In reality, those clients who receive cash awards in any significant amount are truly the most deserving as they have been seriously injured through no fault of their own and are usually well deserving of any compensation they receive.