Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

The Dram shop theory of liability is a legal doctrine which essentially holds that restaurants and lounges who serve noticeably intoxicated patrons with alcoholic beverages knowing that they are soon to drive can be held liable to third parties who are injured by such drunk drivers. Drunk driving is a major problem in this country and those vendors, including specifically restaurants and lounges, who serve visibly intoxicated patrons should be held legally liable for the damages inflicted by their customers. Responsible restaurant chains and lounges train their staff not to serve those who are noticeably intoxicated. Such establishments also train their staff never to serve those they know will soon be driving if they appear to be intoxicated from having consumed alcoholic beverages. Obviously, for such a policy to have any effect, the staff of these establishments must be sufficiently trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of someone becoming intoxicated.

Over the years, our firm has handled many cases involving Dram shop claims. These cases typically involve wrongful death actions where the drunk patron left the restaurant or lounge and ran over and killed someone on the way home, either by running over a pedestrian or colliding with a vehicle by running a red light or otherwise. In order to win these cases and help the family or the victim, who sometimes may be paralyzed or suffer a traumatic amputation or some other serious personal injury, it is necessary that there be a full, complete and immediate investigation to prove that the patron/drunk driver was noticeably intoxicated and that the establishment knew or had reason to know that there customer would soon be driving after having become noticeably intoxicated. Like any other serious legal claim, it is imperative that such investigation be conducted while the facts are fresh otherwise this type of claim can be lost due to a lack of available evidence.

Tire failures have caused the death or serious injury of many motorists in Georgia and across the nation over the years. There are many causes of tire failure but the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP know that one of the most common causes for tire failure is heat buildup. Heat buildup, especially in truck tires, usually results from under-inflation, overloading, high speed operation or a combination of these factors. A recent study by The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) demonstrated that the top two types of damage for tire debris fragments found on the roadside were: road hazard (39%) and excessive heat (30%). Sometimes, tire failures occur because the tires being sold and used on a particular vehicle are not suitable for that vehicle or application.

Goodyear has faced numerous claims resulting from tire failures and vehicle accidents, many resulting in serious injury and death. As an example, Goodyear marketed their G159 tire to the RV industry for nearly a decade in the 1990's and 2000's, even though Goodyear knew it was dangerous to use that particular tire on those vehicles. The tire, originally designed for urban delivery trucks was speed rated for only 65 miles per hour, continuous use; however; in 1998 Goodyear increased the speed rating to 75 miles per hour, even though the tire design was prone to overheat on RV’s that typically travel at those speeds for extended periods. There are no doubt still plenty of Goodyear G159 tires in use on RV’s throughout the country which could fail causing catastrophic injuries. If you are a consumer and considering the purchase of replacement tires, it is crucial to make sure that the tires under consideration are matched to the vehicle or trailer that you intend to use them on.

Continue reading "Tire Failures Cause Many Automobile and Truck Accidents" »

Georgia injury lawyers have seen many serious automobile accidents, tractor-trailer accidents and motorcycle accidents caused by foreign objects and road debris on Georgia highways. Not a week goes by that we do not see a significant amount of road debris laying in the middle of Atlanta highways. Just last week a 19 year old girl was killed in Tifton, Georgia when she collided with a tractor-trailer. Both vehicles were heading south on Interstate 75 when the girl swerved to avoid a piece of rubber in the roadway. After running off the roadway, she apparently over-corrected, came back onto the roadway and struck the tractor-trailer rig.

In October of 2008, a woman, trying to avoid road debris, died instantly in a single car crash. The accident happened at about 7:30 a.m. in the westbound lane of Interstate 285 in north Atlanta, Georgia. The victim tried to avoid a truck bed-liner in the highway when she hit a median wall.

In July of 2010, a Canadian woman died when a brake drum broke free from a large commercial truck was struck by the wheel of a tractor trailer and thrown into the air and through the woman’s windshield, striking her in the head.

On June 30, 2010, a Florida woman was killed after a portion of a portable toilet crashed through her car’s windshield. The two portable toilets fail from the trailer of a pickup truck. When they hit the ground and broke apart, a portion of one of them crashed through the woman’s windshield striking her. As a result, the woman veered off the road and crashed into a tree.

There are ever increasing numbers of these accidents which are claiming the lives of many motorists. Failure to secure a load being transported by car, tractor-trailer or any other vehicle is negligence for which you may be liable in damages. Trying to identify the person or corporation responsible for foreign objects being in the roadway is not always very easy.

Continue reading "Road Debris On Georgia Highways Can Kill" »

One would think that under Georgia law, the same person or persons who has the right to bring a wrongful death case would also have a right to seek compensation for funeral, medical and other expenses pertaining to the wrongful death. And yet, under the unique provisions of Georgia law, this is not the case. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-4-5, it is the personal representative of the decedent who has the right to recover medical and funeral expenses. Typically, therefore, it is necessary to have someone appointed as the personal representative of the decedent’s estate to bring such a claim. In a situation where a child dies, because the parents are legally liable for such expenses, there is no need to set up an estate per se although this can be done.

As we have written in prior entries, Georgia law sets forth who may bring a wrongful death action. Regardless of who that individual is, only the personal representative of the decedent’s estate (except where children are involved) has the right to bring a cause of action for funeral and related medical expenses pertaining to the wrongful death. Thus, under Georgia law, there is a bifurcated claim in most wrongful death cases. The surviving spouse, children or parents may bring the claim for the “full value of the life of the decedent,” whereas only the personal representative may bring a claim for funeral and related medical expenses. Thus, in the typical wrongful death case in Georgia, there are two claims brought; one for the full value of the life of the decedent and the other for medical and funeral expenses pertaining to the wrongful death. In such situations, the plaintiff may be the same person that is the representative of the estate (such as a wife, as an example) or there may be two different individuals involved. Under the unique provisions of Georgia law, the simple fact is that causes of action are divided: there is a wrongful death claim for the full value of the life of the decedent and there is a separate claim which must be brought by the personal representative of the deceased to recover any medical expense attendant to the death and for reimbursement of funeral and burial expenses. In addition, if there was any conscious pre-death pain and suffering experienced by the decedent prior to death, that claim too belongs to the personal representative of the decedent, not to the statutory heirs-at-law, who have the wrongful death claim.

In Georgia, under the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 51-4-1 and 2, the measure of damages in a wrongful death action is “full value of the life of the decedent as shown by the evidence, without deducting for any of the necessary or personal expenses of the decedent had he lived.” The full value of the life of the decedent includes not only all economic damages sustained by the decedent such as lost wages, but also non-economic damages such as the enjoyment of life. Peculiar to Georgia law, the measure of damages is from the standpoint of the decedent. What did the decedent lose? Obviously, if someone was married and employed at the time of death, they lost the society and affection of their wife and children and the enjoyment of their career. By looking at the damage question from the standpoint of the decedent, the jury is not allowed to look at the sympathy and bereavement of the surviving heirs, but must view the evidence from the standpoint of what the decedent lost when their life was wrongfully taken from them by the negligence of the third party who has been sued for their wrongful death.

With respect to non-economic damages, obviously, this is a very broad term which includes not only enjoyment of life but also advice, assistance, care, companionship, counsel, and loving services. These are the “non-economic” portions of the damage caused by the wrongful death which when coupled with the economic damages (typically the amount of money lost by the wrongful death), total the “full value of the life of the decedent.”

Obviously, in proving damages in a wrongful death case, it is important that counsel prove that the decedent’s life had more value apart from their own economic producing potential. Typically, the largest component of a wrongful death claim involves the non-economic damages. Many people who are extremely gifted may not be high wage earners and yet the full value of their life may be greater than the life of a high wage earner. People like poets, artists, musicians, and some retirees may have a much fuller life than younger people but in any case, under Georgia law, the unique provisions of the law are such that a jury must determine the “full value” of the life of the decedent from the standing point of the decedent involved in the case. By making allowances for both economic and non-economic portions of the damages, the jury is given wide latitude in determining what compensation would be fair and reasonable under the circumstances of any given case where a wrongful death has occurred.

The status of the decedent by in large determines who has the right to sue in a wrongful death case. Where someone is killed through the negligent acts of a third party, such as a truck driver or product manufacturer, Georgia law proscribes who has the right to sue such a cause of action. If the person is married at the time of his or her death, the surviving spouse has the right to bring a cause of action for the wrongful death of the decedent. If the decedent is not survived by a spouse, but is survived by children, then the decedent’s children have the cause of action. If the decedent dies without any spouse or children, then the decedent’s parents have the cause of action. If the decedent dies with no surviving spouse, children or parent, then in that event, the administrator of the decedent’s estate has the cause of action and may bring it for the benefit of any remaining relatives. In short, under Georgia law, there is a hierarchy of those who are allowed to bring wrongful death cases but someone is always authorized under the law to bring such a case where the decedent’s death was caused by the negligent acts of a third party.

At our firm we have handled many different wrongful death cases for all of the above categories. We have represented widows, widowers, parents, children and estate representatives. In those cases where the cause of action is vested with a surviving spouse, to the extent the decedent was also survived by children, the spouse proceeds in a fiduciary capacity. In the event of a recovery, the spouse has to divide the recovery with remaining children, but in no event will the spouse receive less than one-third (1/3) of the recovery regardless of the number of children. In short, if there are multiple children, the spouse will receive one-third (1/3) and the children will divide equally the remaining two-thirds (2/3) of any such recovery.

It is important that counsel determine whether a potential client is vested with a cause of action in considering whether a wrongful death case exists. We have been approached many times by siblings, ex-spouses, step-children and the like in situations where there is no valid cause of action that may be brought y the person involved. In Georgia, the law sets forth the classifications of those that are legally authorized to bring wrongful death actions. While a step-child or grandparent or other third party might, under certain circumstances, conceivably have a claim, it would only be in those circumstances where they were appointed as representative of the estate and no one else was statutorily recognized to bring the case. Again, such inquiries must be made when the case is initially being evaluated, because the law sets forth procedurally who has the right to bring the claim.

Our firm is currently handling several serious automobile collision cases in which our innocent clients were severely and permanently injured by negligent corporations. In the accident cases I am referring to, both of our clients sustained very serious neck and back injuries resulting in numerous surgeries. Medical expenses and lost wages to date have already been substantial. However, because both of our clients are relatively young adults, the big fear is that as the clients grow older, their medical expenses and lost wages will increase. The issue is how to present such evidence to the insurance carrier in order to force them to agree to a reasonable settlement. Failing to achieve such a settlement, the issue then becomes how to demonstrate to a trial jury that the client’s expenses and pain and suffering will continue permanently over time. In short, how do you place a value on these damages? Our experience indicates that the best way to do so is by retaining the services of a Life Care expert.

A Life Care expert is trained to extrapolate from current medical data future medical costs based upon an analysis of the extent of the injury and the extent of medical treatment necessary to provide relief for it in the future. Typically, Life Care experts have training beyond that of other members of the medical profession and have focused on evaluating future medical needs whether it be future needs for rehabilitative or therapeutic services, future needs for medication, possible need for future surgery and the like. By conferring with treating physicians and by analyzing available medical evidence, a Life Care expert can prepare a plan which charts, as reasonable as possible, what is likely to occur over time given the current diagnosis and current medical conditions the client suffers from. Data from other similar cases in the past can support the extrapolations into the future.

The reason Life Care Plans are helpful is because they provide a overview of what the future holds for injured persons. For example, someone who loses a leg traumatically and is forced to have a prosthetic device is likely to require many different prosthetic devices over their lifetime. This is particularly true for a young person. The Life Care expert can calculate these costs over time and can come up with a Life Care Plan for the injured individual which includes consideration of such future medical costs, which would include not only the cost of the prosthetic device, but also therapy, medications and so forth. By extrapolating from present day data future medical costs, the Life Care expert and the Life Care Plan can help counsel represent those who are suffering today will undoubtedly continue to suffer in the future and will require future medical expenses. Depending upon the size of the claim and the kinds of damages involved, an economist might also need to be retained in order to quantify the present cash value of future medical expenses and/or lost wages. Either way, the Life Care expert can be of tremendous assistance in helping counsel convince the insurance carrier for the at fault defendant to pay the reasonable costs not only of damages incurred to date, but also anticipated future medical expenses and lost wages. If such an effort at settlement is unsuccessful, the Life Care expert can assist counsel also in helping to convince a jury that it should include as part of its award future medical expenses and lost wages.

“When a vehicle is supplied by an employer for the mutual benefit of himself and his employee to facilitate the progress of the employee’s work, employment begins when the workman enters the vehicle and ends when he leaves it on the termination of his labor.” This statement is an exception to the general rule that coming to or going from work is usually not considered to be work within the scope of employment. However, if an employer furnishes a company owned vehicle to an employee for his use to come to work and be on call for the master’s business 24/7 either via a radio, dispatch system, cell phone or other type of communication device, then in that event, a jury question is present as to whether an employee coming to or going from work is acting within the scope of his employment.

If an employer allows an employee to take a company vehicle home every evening so that it will be available for the employee to perform his duties on an expedited basis the very next morning or if the employee’s truck is furnished with a two-way radio, as an example, where the employee is subject to the direction and control of his supervisors whenever they wish to communicate with him, and/or if the employer furnishes fuel and provides the truck for the mutual benefit of both the employer and employee, under any of these circumstances, there may be an exception to the general rule that an employee typically is not working for his employer until he arrives at the office.

Most of the cases that deal with an employee coming and going to work do not deal with employees driving company vehicles. Under Georgia law, if an employee is involved in an accident while driving an employer’s vehicle, a presumption arises that the employee was on the business of the master. The burden is upon the master to show that the employee was not. If the truck was furnished 24/7 so that the employee would be available for call and/or available to the employer and/or if the vehicle is used as a rolling billboard or advertisement for the employer’s business, then clearly under such circumstances, the vehicle is being used both for the benefit of the employer and the employee.

Continue reading "Employer Liability For Company Cars Involved In Accidents" »

Georgia injury lawyers have seen the devastation created by motorists who drink and drive. Many of the most serious automobile accidents and trucking accidents are caused by drunk motorists. A large number of the offenders are repeat or habitual offenders. Several years ago, our firm represented the mother of a young man in a Federal Tort Claims Act wrongful death case. The young man, who was walking home from work on the shoulder of the road, was struck and killed by an FBI agent driving a bureau car who left the scene of the accident. Our investigation would later show that the agent had just left a bar after a night of drinking. The police officer who showed up at his home later that evening recognized the agent because she had previously charged him with DUI on the same road earlier that year. A Twelve Step Recovery book was found on the seat in his car.

A new Georgia law is ratcheting up the penalties for such repeat offenders by making the crime a felony. In order for the charge to be a felony, a certain number of offenses within a certain time period will qualify a driver for the enhanced charge. In the case of DUI, four arrests and three convictions in one year will earn you a felony.

Continue reading "Georgia Cracking Down On Repeat DUI Offenders" »

A Springfield Georgia automobile accident resulted in the wrongful death of a 17 year old Springfield teenager, Whitney Newman, in the early morning hours last Sunday morning. According to the Savannah Morning News, the teen was a backseat passenger in a Chevrolet Tracker which lost control and flipped over several times, ejecting some of its five passengers. Although authorities did not initially know why the driver lost control of the vehicle, the Georgia State Patrol Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team was investigating. At least two other occupants of the vehicle sustained life-threatening injuries as a result of the accident and they were transported to Memorial University Hospital in Savannah.

Continue reading "Georgia Automobile Accident Results In Death Of Teenager" »

Georgia injury lawyers know that accidents involving serious burn injuries are more common than one might think. The American Burn Association estimates that 1.1 million significant burn injuries occur every year in the United States. Most commonly, burns are caused by: automobile accidents, gas and other flammable liquid fuel explosions, scalding/hot water, electrical accidents, industrial accidents, gasoline spills, building fires, defective candles, lighters and matches; however, the causes are numerous. We have seen cases involving propane powered forklifts which leak gas inside of a parked semi-trailer and explode. We have also seen cases involving injured textile workers scalded by hot water in dye vats. Recently we represented a homeowner whose home exploded after a local propane supplier negligently filled a residential propane tank.

In most serious cases, experts in many different areas are often necessary in assisting burn victims and their families deal with the long term physical and psychological affects of these painful and debilitating injuries.

Our firm understands that your immediate concerns include getting your medical bills paid, limiting potential lost wages, and ensuring insurance coverage for future treatment of your injury. Our experienced attorneys will assess your situation and discuss all the options available to you, as well as work with insurance companies and other involved parties to ensure your needs are quicky and appropriately addressed. We will work to protect your legal rights and pursue rightful compensation for long term medical bills, lost wages, disfigurement, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, and lost enjoyment of life. If you or a loved one have experienced a burn injury, the experienced Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP (800-228-9159) for a free consultation to discuss your legal options.

Beginning today, several new Georgia laws intended to reduce automobile accidents, tractor trailer truck accidents and motorcycle accidents go into effect. One of these is the Texting While Driving law. Georgia drivers under the age of 18 will be charged if they talk or text on a cell phone while driving. Under this new law, all drivers, regardless of age will be charged if they write, send or read a text message, email or access the Internet while driving. If found guilty a motorist will be fined $150.00 and will be assessed 1 point on his or her driving record.

Another new Georgia law, the Pickup Truck Safety Belt law, requires both drivers and passengers of pickups to buckle up except for certain farming restrictions. Georgia injury lawyers know that many victims of automobile accidents and trucking accidents would not have sustained serious injuries if they had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Unfortunately many deaths have resulted from the failure to buckle up. Years ago Georgia passed legislation requiring seat belt use for occupants of automobiles and vans; however, pickup trucks were exempted. For many years, legislation requiring pickup truck seat belt use was defeated by pressure brought to bear from legislators who represented rural constituents.

Continue reading "New Georgia Laws In Effect To Curb Automobile Accidents and Truck Accidents" »

In a personal injury lawsuit, it is always difficult for the trial lawyer representing the injured victim to talk about money in the context of pain and suffering. How does one fairly compensate an individual who is suffering as a result of the acts of a third party? Someone who is sitting still at a stop sign and who is rear-ended by a commercial truck, for example, and who sustains a broken neck or back is going to be faced with a lifetime of pain and suffering. How does one fairly compensate such an individual with money? This is a difficult determination which juries must wrestle with and which trial lawyers must address in their presentations on behalf of their innocent clients.

One of the things I think about as a trial lawyer is the ridiculous salaries that are paid to sport figures. There is a recent Georgia Tech graduate, whose name will not be repeated here, who is in the NBA that I read in a news article recently who is making over $50 million per year for a NBA team that did not even make the playoffs. This staggering amount of money, obviously, is way too much money for a basketball player, who has no skills other than being able to shoot a basketball. And yet, if I stand up in front of a jury on behalf of someone with a broken neck or back and I were to ask for $50 million, I would be subject to ridicule and scorn even though my client with a broken neck or back might have to live for as long as 40 to 50 years with incredible pain and suffering. While I agree that 40 to50 million dollars is greatly excessive for such a claim, the disconnect comes when one looks at the value of a single year of basketball for a losing team verses 40-50 years of life in suffering for an innocent victim who did nothing wrong.

The good news is that juries are typically comprised of people from the community with a great deal of common sense. Most juries compromise on issues such as this and reach the best decision they can as to what award of compensation would be fair to provide some financial relief for the innocent victim who is subjected to a lifetime of pain and suffering. Obviously, none of us ever want to be in the position of having to ask a jury to give us fair compensation. This is because none of us want to be subjected to a lifetime of pain and suffering. And yet, in modern society, there are those among us who will be injured, through no fault of our own, and who will have to appear before juries asking that they be treated fairly. The great thing about the American judicial system that is as a rule American juries are fair.

Finch McCranie has been representing innocent victims caught up in police chases for over a decade. While the police should chase violent felons who are endangering the public, many of these cases involve chases where the police are pursuing non-violent or mere traffic offenders at high speeds with the end result being a third party killed or injured, caught up by happenstance in the dangerous pursuit. We have long advocated that the police should pursue violent offenders where the risk of the chase to the public is justified by the risk to the public caused by the offender. If the suspect being pursued has merely violated a traffic law or has committed some other non-violent offense or felony, even if they are apprehended, they are liable to be sentenced to a very light fine and perhaps no incarceration. And yet, in order to chase such a suspect, the police are all too often willing to endanger the rights of the innocent motoring public. Unfortunately, innocent third parties are killed during these dangerous pursuits.

Recently, the City of Milwaukee changed its high speed pursuit policy. From now on, Milwaukee police officers must have probable cause that a violent felony has occurred before they will be authorized to pursue a fleeing suspect. This is because four (4) people have already been killed in 2010 in separate incidents by drivers fleeing from the Milwaukee police. The Police Chief of Milwaukee issued a statement in which he stated that he had to consider the risk to the public caused by the changes in evaluating his City’s policies. As he stated: “I have an obligation to my officers, despite the risk they are willing to take, to limit their risk of injury or death, to make sure that the danger represented by the suspect justifies the risk of violent death. All too often it clearly does not justify that risk.” While this is a welcome change in policy and a sensible and rational approach to police chases in general, many other jurisdictions have failed to adopt a similar policy. Accordingly, officers in many jurisdictions in Georgia and elsewhere continue to chase non-violent offenders at dangerously high speeds sometimes with the result that an innocent third party gets caught up in the chase by happenstance and loses their life or sustains serious and permanent injuries.

We have long advocated that the police should chase those where the risk posed to the public by the suspect is equal to or greater than the risk associated with these dangerous pursuits. However, if the suspect has merely committed a traffic offense or other non-violent offense, the risk of these dangerous pursuits to the public is simply too great. Simply stated, to impose the death penalty on an innocent third party in order to apprehend someone who is non-violent makes no sense.

We are pleased there has been a change in policy in Milwaukee and we can only hope that other police departments will consider changes in their policies. The myth that such policy changes actually encourage crime (by encouraging flight) has been proven over and over again to be a false myth. Those jurisdictions that adopt more restrictive police pursuit policies (such as Milwaukee) have not experienced an increase in crime or in flight cases. There is no reason not to change dangerous non-restrictive policies in a sensible, rational way as has the City of Milwaukee. We applaud Chief Edward Flynn for his stance in this regard. He is doing something that makes sense. We hope that other police chiefs and departments will follow suit.

General Motors Co. Is recalling 1.3 million Chevrolet and Pontiac compacts cars to repair or replace steering motors which can fail causing the vehicle to be difficult to steer at lower speeds. While this may not be an insurmountable problem for some drivers, the Georgia injury lawyers recognize that it may be a serious problem for older or elderly drivers who may surprised by the loss of the power steering and be physically unable to steer the vehicle. Under those circumstances a power steering failure could cause an automobile accident with devastating consequences.

According to an article published by the Associated Press today, General Motors told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the recall on Monday. NHTSA began an investigation into 905,000 of the models on January 27th after getting 1,100 complaints that the cars lost their power steering. The complaints included 14 crashes and one injury.

If you or a loved one have been injured in an automobile accident involving a recalled vehicle, contact the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP .Our firm has been representing injured victims in products liability claims for over 45 years.

Chrysler Group LLC announced on yesterday it will replace a front airbag crash sensor in more than 355,000 minivans. Careful not to call it a “recall”, Chrysler says it’s “safety improvement campaign” covers its 2005 -2006 Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans sold in the United State and Canada.

Chrysler’s “safety improvement campaign” came about because they discovered that under certain environmental conditions one of the front airbag sensors could crack allowing water to enter the sensor potentially rendering it inoperable. In a carefully worded document Chrysler sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to notify them of the “safety improvement campaign”, Chrysler said inter alia, “Until the vehicle is repaired, the airbags may not provide the enhanced protection in the event of a crash.”

As Georgia injury lawyers, we have seen and litigated many product liability cases. It is clear that, at present, in the event of an automobile accident involving Chrysler’s 2005 -2006 Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans potentially the front seat passengers of those vehicles would have no protection and might be subjected to serious injuries and possibly death in the event of a head-on collision.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured as a result of a defective and dangerous product of any kind, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP to discuss your legal rights.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have seen our share of dangerous products recalled for one reason or another; however, last week's recall of numerous Toyota models of automobiles and trucks probably sets a new record. In late 2009, Toyota issued a recall of 4.2 million vehicles because it was thought that they could interfere with the gas pedal and cause sudden acceleration. Now Toyota has issued a recall affecting 2.3 million vehicles and has suspended the sale of eight models, including their most popular model, the Camry, over faulty gas pedals that could stick and cause unexpected acceleration and result in an automobile accident.

Toyota is working with CTS Corp., which manufactures gas pedals for Toyota, to redesign the pedals and to find a remedy for what is believed to be a condensation problem which can cause the pedal to move slowly or in some cases get stuck.

In the meantime, there are thousands of potentially dangerous vehicles of the road which could suddenly accelerate and cause serious injuries to the occupants and others or even cause the wrongful death of innocent people.

If you or a loved one is injured as a result of the sudden acceleration of a Toyota product, call one of the Georgia injury lawyers immediately for a free consultation. In all of these cases, it is crucial that the automobile be preserved so that it can be inspected by experts.

The statistical evidence regarding automobile accidents continues to demonstrate that drivers who are distracted while driving are dangerous drivers likely to be involved in accidents. Texting while driving, using cell phones while driving and other distractive driving problems continue to cause more and more accidents on our highways and more and more injuries to innocent third parties endangered by such conduct.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2008, there were a total of 34,017 fatal crashes in which 37,261 individuals died. Sixteen percent (16%) of the total fatalities were due to driver distraction. The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of the fatal crashes increased from eight percent (8%) in 2004 to eleven percent (11%) in 2008. This is hardly surprising because more and more drivers are using their cell phones and are texting while driving. Drivers under the age of 20 had the highest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes according to NHTSA sixteen percent (16%). Again, this statistic is hardly surprising because those who seem to use their cell phones the most and/or text while driving are the younger drivers on the road.

Of the 1,630 injury crashes reported throughout the United States, NHTSA estimates that an astounding twenty-one percent (21%) involved distracted driving.

Many states have banned the use of handheld devices while driving. These include California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and the Virgin Islands. A texting ban exists Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Guam. Notably, no such ban for either form of distracted driving exists in Georgia.

Based on the statistical evidence released by NHTSA, it is clear that the Georgia Legislature should enact laws to protect innocent members of the motoring public from distracted drivers. Until and unless such legislation is enacted, this problem will likely continue to mount and more and more innocent third parties will either be killed or seriously injured by such conduct. Stop if you are doing either!

Last fall Toyota announced the largest auto recall in U.S. history after numerous sudden unintended acceleration accidents were reported, many of which resulted in fatalities. Now, Toyota has announced an additional recall of 2.3 million vehicles to correct this same problem. Why the additional recall? It appears that Toyota is doing so because ABC News is soon to report an increase in sudden acceleration cases since the recall last year. According to news reports, there have been 60 new cases of sudden unintended acceleration cases involving Toyota vehicle.

In one tragic occurrence outside of Dallas, Texas, four people were killed when a Toyota sped off the road through a fence and landed upside down in a pond. Even though Toyota has long blamed maladjusted floormats for the unintended acceleration problem, however, in this particular accident, the floormats were found in the car’s trunk where the owners had been advised to put them as part of the earlier recall. Thus, the evidence continues to mount that this problem with Toyotas is not caused by floormats but rather by onboard computer glitches and other engineering issues.

While we are pleased that Toyota has finally recalled its dangerous products, obviously, it is disturbing that Toyota refused to do so earlier for all affected vehicles. From the reported news coverage, had it done so, it may be that an additional 60 cases involving injuries and/or fatalities may have been avoided.

This is a question that we are asked by virtually every client in every case we have. The answer is that if a settlement offer is made which is approximately equal to what one can expect to receive at a jury trial then the case should be settled. In other words, there would be no need for a jury trial because the settlement offer being made is approximately what one would likely receive in front of a fair and impartial jurors. If the offer is below what one is likely to receive from fair and impartial jurors then we recommend that clients not accept the settlement offer. Obviously, if the offer is above what we reasonably believe a fair and impartial jury would award in a particular case, we recommend that our client accept such an offer.

It is not always easy to predict what a fair and impartial jury would do with a particular case. The nuances and unique facts of any case obviously influence claim evaluation. If liability is strong and if damages are good and the client otherwise makes a favorable impression, such a case has a greater settlement value than does a case where there are liability issues, damage issues and/or client problems. As always, the facts are key but sometimes the law as it pertains to the unique facts involved will dictate as well the outcome of the case and/or the evaluation of a particular claim.

Sometimes the law is not favorable to a particular position that a party has in litigation. The less favorable the law to their position, the less valuable the claim from a claim evaluation standpoint. In those cases where a client has been victimized by the negligence of a third party, they are truly innocent in the premises and their damages are clear and easily proven, such a case has greater settlement value than does one where the damages may be attributable to acts other than the negligence, there is contested liability based on the facts and circumstances of the case and/or the client’s expectations are unreasonable or they do not make a very positive impression and thus a jury may not like them.

What we try to do in representing our clients is to make sure that their cases are presented in the best light possible so that we can get the best possible result for them. If an offer is made that is equal to what we believe a fair and impartial jury would award, we always recommend that such a client consider such a settlement proposal assuming it is made. Of course, it is the client’s ultimate decision whether they wish to settle or rely upon fair and impartial jurors to resolve their case. Going to trial can be a gamble because oftentimes one can get a lesser verdict than they would have obtained via settlement. If the client is fully informed of these risks and nonetheless wishes to go to trial, sometimes the award obtained is higher than one might otherwise obtain through settlement. As long as the client is fully informed of their options and counsel is fully prepared to present the strongest case possible to the jury, the client should be advised that a jury trial is an option that they should consider, however, in weighing their options, if the offer made is reasonable and is likely to approximate what a fair and impartial jury might award, then in that event, we always recommend that our clients consider such a settlement offer while deferring to their discretion whether they wish nonetheless to accept the risk of going forward to a jury trial.