Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

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.

Most members of the public do not know how so-called “tort reform” serves to undermine basic liberties when it comes to our civil judicial system. One of the best examples of this is a little known law which serves to impede access to our courts. This is the “Offer of Judgment” statute which was passed by the Republican controlled Georgia Legislature, codified at O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68. Simply stated, if you are a middle class person and you wish to litigate a civil case, if you should do so and should receive “an offer of judgment” from the person or company you sue, you could be jeopardizing your family, your career, your home and every asset you own. Do the people in Georgia really appreciate what this law means and how it could affect them in the event they ever get into a good faith civil dispute with a third party? The answer is “No” as the public by in large never knows about such laws until and unless they are directly confronted by them - and by then it is too late to do anything about it.

The offer of judgment statute provides that if a civil litigant is sent an offer of judgment by a civil defendant and they refuse to accept it then they can be held liable for the other party’s attorneys fees and expenses. As an example, let us suppose that an average citizen in Georgia has a tort claim against a huge corporation. They file a lawsuit in good faith with representation of counsel. They then receive an offer of judgment from the large corporation. The offer of judgment could be for 50% of the value of their claim. However, if the citizen does not obtain more from a jury than the offer of judgment then they will be held liable for the corporation’s legal expenses. Thus, if a corporation should run up legal expenses through their expensive lawyers in the amount of $250,000.00, $500,000.00 or even a million dollars, if the citizen should obtain a judgment which is less than the offer of judgment, then they will have to pay the attorneys’ fees to the corporation even if they win their case. Obviously, this is a terrible law which was designed to force those with less resources to accept settlements less than the total value of their case. This saves big business money by way of litigation expenses and otherwise but attempts to force the small average citizen to take less than their claim may be worth, otherwise they may risk financial suicide.

In a tort case, let’s say a large trucking company severely injures an innocent victim. During the litigation the trucking company makes an offer of judgment to pay the injured individual $500,000.00 for their broken legs, arms and other bodily injuries. If a jury should return a later verdict of $495,000.00 then, in that event, the innocent injured victim will have to pay attorney’s fees to the person who injured them because they did not get a judgment more than the offer. This can happen for a variety of reasons. A member of the jury could have been extremely conservative or even affiliated somehow directly or indirectly with the trucking company. Counsel for the victim may have underestimated problems with the case, may have misvalued the case, or failed to present all available evidence. Or there simply could have been a result which was not just and which did not award the victim a greater amount due to the makeup of the jury. Under any of these scenarios, the innocent victim is further victimized by the trucking company because the victim would then have to pay the legal expenses of the trucking company, even though they won the case. The offer of judgment statute is a terrible law. It forces people to take settlements or otherwise face financial ruin if they make the wrong decision. Large corporations and large businesses can afford to run the risk because they can afford the adverse consequences whereas the average citizen cannot. This is why the law is so unfair and truly is a denial of equal protection under the laws. At present, however, the law has been upheld by our courts.

This is but a bad single example of “tort reform.” While those that passed this law may have been trying to reduce the expenses to business, nonetheless, the impact on the innocent is very severe and should not be allowed. We continue to say that tort reform in reality is tort “deform” which tilts the scales of justice decidedly in favor of big business and against the average citizen. Because the average citizen is not a “special interest group,” the special interests are able to pass these laws to protect their pocketbooks while at the same time taking away important legal rights from the average man in the street. This is not fair and is bad law. This also proves that elections are important. Citizens should vote for legislators which will protect their civil rights. Yes - we need to be sensitive to the legitimate interests of business groups - but this does not mean we should pass bad laws that favor special interest groups over average citizens.

In the typical case in civil litigation, the winning and losing sides are responsible for their own attorney’s fees. There is an exception to this rule under Georgia law. If a party acts in bad faith in the underlying transaction (committing acts of fraud and/or attempting to damage the Plaintiff, as an example) or is guilty of stubborn litigiousness (pursuing claims or defenses based on frivolous legal and factual defenses) then in that event, attorney’s fees can be awarded. The Code Section in this regard is O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11.

Another unique provision of Georgia law is that a court may consider a contingent fee agreement and the amount of fees it would generate as evidence of “usual and customary fees” in determining both the reasonableness and the amount of award of attorney’s fees. In other words, if a victim in a personal injury suit should be further victimized by the bad faith and stubborn litigiousness of the person who caused their injuries, they may be entitled to attorney’s fees as part of their damages and can use a contingent fee contract with their own attorney as evidence in support of their claim.

If an innocent victim in a personal injury case is subjected to bad faith in the underlying transaction through acts of misconduct, sabotage, spoliation of evidence or false testimony and/or should be subjected to frivolous defenses and is caused unnecessary trouble and expense in the litigation process, then not only should they seek compensation for the personal injuries sustained as well as medical expenses, lost wages and other compensatory damages, they should also seek to recover attorney’s fees. In this regard, their own attorney can testify that the contingent fee agreement is a reasonable and customary arrangement in such cases and that the award of contingent fees would be the reasonable and customary and necessary amount of fees to pursue justice for the client. There is a good Georgia case which holds that the contingent fee agreement in and of itself is “a valid indicator of the value of attorney services.” See Home Depot USA v. Tvrdeich, 268 Ga. App. 579, 584, 602 S.E. 2d 297 (2004).

“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" »

Under the law of the State of Georgia, law enforcement officials enjoy official immunity for acts performed within the scope of their discretionary authority. As long as they are performing discretionary acts and not ministerial duties, they can only be held liable if they are acting outside the scope of his authority or with actual malice or intent to injure. These are very difficult propositions to prove in the routine case. If an officer, however, violates a simple ministerial task, he can be liable but even here sometimes there is a difficulty suing a particular law enforcement official because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which more often than not is implicated in these cases.

If a county official is involved, typically, the county can only be liable for acts where there has been a statutory waiver of immunity such as the statute which exists providing for a waiver of sovereign immunity in connection with damages caused by the negligent use of motor vehicles. As an example, in a police chase, if the officer recklessly disregards proper police procedure, the officer can be sued and official immunity overcome assuming there is evidence of reckless disregard of proper police procedure for the chase because of the statutory waiver of immunity. In other contexts, it is difficult to prove a waiver of sovereign immunity and consequently it is difficult to hold an officer liable for acts committed within the scope of his/her discretionary authority.

In many of the articles we have written thus far, we keep using “easier said than done” when it comes to bringing legal claims against law enforcement officials. The law is protective of officers acting within the scope of their authority and usually only allows claims to go forward when there has either been a clear breach or abuse of the authority and/or an intent to cause injury such that misconduct is established to exist. If the officer violates a simple ministerial task, again, he may be liable on a different legal basis.

Any such case against a law enforcement officer in state court must be analyzed under state law and sovereign immunity implications are always involved. Again, anyone with a case involving claims against a state law enforcement officials should confer with counsel as soon as possible in order to have the issues properly reviewed. Ante-litem pre-suit notices of claims are oftentimes required in these cases as well.

Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States, a state law enforcement official typically cannot be sued in his official capacity for acts done within the scope of his official duties. The reason is the Eleventh Amendment which prohibits lawsuits against a state or “state actors” without state consent. This constitutional prohibition against such lawsuits typically means that if someone has a civil rights claim they wish to assert in court against a law enforcement official then they might need to consider doing so in state court as opposed to federal court. Obviously, filing a lawsuit in a state court where the law enforcement agency exists is a difficult proposition because the lawsuit has to be filed in the same jurisdiction where the law enforcement authorities serve as bailiffs to the court and otherwise have considerable control over the jurisdiction implicated. To get around the Eleventh Amendment, one has to establish that the individual was either not a “state actor” or was acting outside the scope of his or her authority. Another exception to the Eleventh Amendment is claims brought against law enforcement officials not in their official capacity but rather in their individual capacity.

An officer acting within the scope of his discretionary authority who does not violate clear constitutional precedent concerning his/her actions may be difficult to hold liable in federal court. While it may be difficult, it is not impossible. Again, the cases are always factually specific and the legal issues turn on the facts. Nonetheless, in considering where to file a lawsuit against a law enforcement official in the context of a potential civil rights claim, one must be mindful of the Eleventh Amendment and the various restrictions it imposes upon litigants seeking redress for civil rights violations.

When a law enforcement officer abuses his authority and uses excessive force in an arrest or detention of a suspect, legally, the victim of such excessive force faces some very significant legal hurdles in seeking redress for any injuries caused by the excessive force. What we refer to here is known as the doctrine of qualified immunity. Simply stated, as long as a law enforcement official is acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, he/she essentially has immunity for his acts unless he clearly violates established legal precedent concerning the propriety of his/her conduct. Whether such a violation is proven is determined by an objective analysis of the facts from the standpoint of a reasonable officer. If a reasonable officer would have objectively used the same degree of force, then there is no legal liability, even if someone is shot and killed.

There are many complex variables that one must consider in handling an excessive force case against a police officer. Whether the doctrine of qualified immunity does or does not apply is a factually specific inquiry. While the hurdle is high for a victim of excessive force to overcome, it is not an impossible burden to meet. Even if an officer is acting within the scope of his authority and is exercising discretion, if his actions are objectively unreasonable and result in unreasonable and unnecessary injury to a third party, legal claims can be brought and can be sustained.

Any person who claims to be a victim of the excessive use of force should confer with counsel as soon as possible. The issues are, again, factually specific and legally complex which necessitates a in-depth investigation of what the facts were at the time of the use of force. This too can be a difficult undertaking because the police are likely to provide a version of events most favorable to their position and the victim oftentimes is not believed simply because he/she is the alleged criminal suspect in many of these cases: All the more reason for counsel to be conferred with as soon as possible in the context of any of these cases.

Under Georgia law, a sheriff and only a sheriff is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his or her deputies. A county sheriff employs the deputy and the deputy reports to the sheriff. Thus, if a deputy sheriff is negligent, the sheriff is liable not the County. Notwithstanding this legal liability, however, there is a confusing element of Georgia law when it comes to perfecting claims against sheriffs and their deputies.

While the law is somewhat ambiguous in this regard and in many ways unsettled, anyone that has a claim against a sheriff or deputy sheriff should consider serving an ante-litem notice upon the county where the sheriff’s office exists. Under O.C.G.A. § 36-11-1, there is a provision which specifies that counties should be served with ante-litem notices for claims against counties. Again, a county cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of a deputy sheriff. Nonetheless, until the law is properly resolved, the more prudent approach for the time being would be to file an ante-litem notice with the county and the sheriff’s office if someone has a claim against a deputy sheriff based on allegations of negligence and damage caused thereby.

The county ante-litem notice provides that written notice of claim must be served on a county within twelve (12) months of the date of an occurrence. Thus, even though the statute of limitation for a personal injury claim in Georgia is two (2) years, in reality, if one has a claim against a county, one should assert it out of an abundance of caution within twelve (12) months even if the claim is against a sheriff or a deputy sheriff. Again, the law is somewhat unsettled in this regard although many defense attorneys would contend that it is absolutely settled and that such notice is required. A more prudent and cautious approach for practitioners is to serve an ante-litem notice on both the sheriff and the county where the sheriff is employed so as to preserve all legal rights. This needs to be done until the law is completely clarified and until there is no ambiguity one way or another on the question.

A very common issue is a serious injury case is whether there exists any vicarious liability of a third party. If a truck driver runs into a motorist stopped at a stop sign and seriously injures them the question is whether the truck driver alone can be sued and/or their employer. Under longstanding legal principles, an employer is vicariously liable for the acts of the employee. As long as the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident and injures the innocent third party, the employer will be vicariously liable for the damages caused by such negligent acts even if the employer did not approve of the acts and/or had company policies prohibiting such negligent behavior. The reason is because an employer is by definition responsible for the acts of employees acting within the scope of their employment.

In a serious injury case, the insurance carrier for the employer is likely to contend that the employee was not acting within the scope of their employment. If vicarious liability can be contested, the company can try to contend that there is no legal liability for the victim’s claims. Usually this is a defense used by the insurance carrier defending a company which is trying to avoid paying the claim. Even if the claim is legitimate and even if the victim is extremely injured and/or killed, in many cases, if the company’s insurance carrier can avoid liability by denying vicarious liability they will do so. Again, this issue turns on whether the employee, at the time of the act which caused the injury was acting within the scope of his/her employment.

Anytime there is an issue concerning vicarious liability, and if the case involves a serious injury, obviously, counsel should be retained as soon as possible. The victim’s rights need to be protected through an adequate investigation of these claims in order to establish vicarious liability. If it can be established that a particular employee was acting within the scope of their employment, then the victim’s rights can be protected by suing not only the negligent employee but also their employer. As this has obvious implications on the company’s insurance coverage, the extent of the coverage and the amount of the coverage available to satisfy the claim, any person with a serious injury involving possible third party liability should confer with experienced counsel as soon as is practicable to address this issue.

Most members of the public do not realize that it is very difficult to sue a government official. As long as government officials are acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, they are typically immunized by law from legal liability for mistakes they make, even including claims involving negligence, gross negligence and/or recklessness. The main exception to this rule typically involves the operation of automobiles for which there has been a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity in Georgia. There are, however, other limited exceptions which can apply in certain particular cases. As an example, if a government official is acting outside the scope of his authority or even if he is performing a discretionary act, if he acts with intent to injure and/or acts maliciously, he or she can lose immunized status and be subject to legal liability for such willful acts. Again, these exceptions to the doctrine of official immunity are limited. Accordingly, if a claim is to successfully be brought against a government official, it is necessary that counsel be retained at the earliest opportunity.

Not only is there a procedure maze of hurdles that one must overcome to file a claim against a government official, as indicated in earlier blogs and other posts on this site, there are multiple ante-litem provisions that must be taken into consideration when considering a claim against a government official. Valid claims against those who abuse their authority can be successfully prosecuted if the facts establish an exception to claims of official immunity.

Typically government employees are entitled to qualified immunity for acts committed within their official job functions. Such official job functions are called usually discretionary functions and for any such discretionary acts, they are usually afforded complete immunity. The only way around this immunity from suit is to prove that the government actor acted with actual malice or intended to cause harm and/or were acting outside the scope of their authority. As is true of any other claim involving either sovereign immunity or official immunity/qualified immunity claims against government agencies and/or employees, it is necessary that a claimant, who has been injured through the acts of a government agency or employee, immediately confer with counsel.

As we have blogged on in the last week or so, there are many pre-suit notification requirements and there is quite a bit of analysis that has to be done to determine whether an individual government employee can be held personally liable in their personal capacity and/or whether there is any waiver of sovereign immunity such that claims can be brought against them in their official capacity. Because time is of the essence in these claims, any person that has a potential claim against a government agent or employee, should confer with counsel immediately.

We have blogged before about pre-suit notification requirements against counties. Simply stated, such a notification must be provided within twelve (12) months of the date of the occurrence or event claimed to have caused personal injury to the claimant. Fortunately, there is a body of law that states that filing a lawsuit within one (1) year of the event will serve to provide Notice to the county. This body of law, however, is entirely different from claims involving State government and also is entirely different from claims against municipalities. Why it is that the difference exists is not completely understood, but the fact remains that if a claimant with a personal injury claim against a county agency or employee files a lawsuit within twelve (12) months of the date of the occurrence or omission involved, they usually will be protected. It is still a good idea, however, to give a written Ante-Litem Notice or pre-suit notification even prior to filing the lawsuit so that no assertion can be made that the county did not receive notice of the potential claim for injuries. Once again, we urge anyone with a possibility of a claim to assert it just as soon as possible and to confer with counsel as soon as possible so as to protect their rights under the law.

Oftentimes we are asked by clients who have claims against government entities and/or employees to represent their interests in personal injury cases. Regrettably, due to the antiquated and harsh doctrine of sovereign immunity (for legal claims), this many times proves to be a difficult undertaking. Simply stated, sovereign immunity protects many government agencies and employees from lawsuits involving personal injuries. Thankfully, there are some exceptions to the rule, most notably when there is another statute that waives the immunity from suit.

With respect to county immunity, the Georgia Code states that county governments are entitled to sovereign immunity unless liability is imposed upon them by law. See O.C.G.A. § 36-1-4. The only statute that imposes liability upon counties by operation of law is O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51, which allows a waiver of sovereign immunity when a county purchases liability insurance for the negligent use or operation of a government owned motor vehicle. The law used to be that if a government employee ran over someone or ran a stop sign and caused serious personal injuries nothing could be done because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As stated, there is now a statute that waives county government immunity in situations involving vehicles. However, if a county employee or agent hurts another person due to a difficult type of negligent act and there is no waiver of sovereign immunity, then there may not be any means of recovery for the innocent victim of the governmental negligence.
Because cases involving sovereign immunity are always factually unique, they require unique legal analysis as well. An ante-litem notice is required for virtually all claims against governmental agencies so anyone with a claim against a county, municipality or state government agency or employee should confer with counsel immediately to preserve their rights. Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity can be overcome again will be a question of both facts and law, but the sooner the analysis begins, the better, because otherwise claims can be barred altogether for failure to file timely pre-suit notifications with the government agency involved.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act. A key component of this law was to prevent attorneys from contacting members of a victim’s family for at least forty-five (45) days after an airline crash. After a crash involving serious injuries or deaths, families need to be left alone to tend to family matters. They do not need to be besieged by attorneys seeking to profit upon their misfortunes. In recognition of the fact that oftentimes members of the Bar fail to adhere to the high standards of professionalism we would hope would be adhered to without this law, Congress passed this law to protect victims of these tragedies.

We read last week that a Detroit lawyer has been ordered to pay $5,000.00 to settle a Complaint against him filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Michigan concerning a violation of this Act. Allegedly, the lawyer sent a solicitation lawyer from his Detroit office directly to a victim’s family within twelve (12) days of a tragic crash. The case apparently was investigated by the Inspector General’s Office for the United States Department of Transportation and resulted in the civil fine imposed on the attorney.

Unfortunately, lawyers oftentimes approach victims in hospitals right after tragedies and in other contexts where it is inappropriate to do so. Yes, clients need to be advised of their rights and yes, clients need legal advice when dealing with tragedies affecting their loved ones. But, clients do not need to be solicited directly by attorneys when they are grieving or dealing with the results of a tragic event. Clients should reach out to attorneys when they are ready to do so and they should not be besieged and bombarded by those seeking to profit from their misfortune.

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.

Mediation can be employed at any stage of a civil dispute. It can occur before or after a lawsuit is filed. Our experience at this firm has typically been that mediation occurs after a lawsuit is filed and after the parties have become well acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the dispute. Once the parties have access to all the operative and materials facts via written discovery and depositions, it is not uncommon for one party to suggest a mediation of the dispute.

Once mediation is agreed upon, a third party neutral or mediator is selected to preside over the mediation session. The third party neutral is typically an experienced attorney or judge who has experience with the type of dispute at issue. Whether the case involves medical malpractice, products liability, wrongful death, a tractor-trailer accident or other personal injury claim, typically, one tries to select a mediator who has extensive experience in such a case. The parties then appear jointly at a prearranged mediation conference after which time the mediator takes over as a presiding third party neutral.

The role of the mediator at the mediation conference is to facilitate settlement negotiations. The mediator typically listens to both sides summarize their respective contentions and then the mediator meets privately with each side trying to get one side to make an offer and the other side to make a counteroffer thereto. During the negotiation process the mediator probes the weaknesses and strengths of each side and encourages both sides to be open minded always agreeing to compromise their respective positions. Any successful mediator or third party neutral tell both sides that in order for a settlement to occur both sides have to negotiate in good faith and have to agree to compromise, that is accept less than what they would ideally want but nonetheless try to reach a good faith compromise agreement to resolve the dispute.

Typically, at our firm, as long as the mediator is qualified, we allow the defense to select whom ever they wish. Our logic is that if the defense selects a mediator, by definition, they must have confidence in his or her abilities to evaluate a claim. We always agree to whomever the defense selects because we are confident that we can convince a neutral third party mediator of the strength of our case and thus, if they accept our position, they will be able to successfully advocate to the other side who selected them that they should reconsider their position and increase their settlement offer.

Some mediators are better than others either due to experience and/or personality. When an experienced mediator gets involved in the process, we have found that between 80 to 90 percent of the time a case does settle at mediation. This is a very good track record which indicates that when both sides have access to all of the material facts that are needed to evaluate a claim and when both sides are assisted by a third party neutral, the chances of a successful settlement are good.

The simple answer to this question is - Yes. Mediation is a tool that is oftentimes successfully used to settle disputes in a variety of contexts including personal injury claims. Whether the case involves breach of contract, employment disputes, medical malpractice, products liability or an automobile accident, mediation has proven to be an effective tool in resolving civil disputes. While it is not always successful, nonetheless, mediation is something that should be considered by virtually any client when trying to resolve a civil dispute. If a reasonable settlement offer is made at mediation, the case can be resolved. If not, the parties can walk away and proceed with a trial by jury.

Here at our firm, of course, we do not prepare cases for mediation, we prepare them for trial. The best way to get a successful settlement result is to demonstrate to the opponent in a civil dispute that if the dispute cannot be amicably resolved a jury is very likely to award a substantial verdict against them. By demonstrating strength to the opponent during the civil litigation process, one increases the chances of getting a fair settlement for their claim. Thus, if we agree to mediation of a particular claim involving a client with a personal injury case, we try to do so with the posture of the case being a demonstration of strength verses weakness in agreeing to submit to a settlement conference. In subsequent blogs, we will describe the mediation process and why it is an effective tool in resolving claims. For the time being, we are simply trying to advocate that in any civil dispute mediation can be used to try to settle the case on an amicable basis by means of compromise. As is true of any other settlement agreement, the key word here is compromise. If both sides are willing to compromise their portion of the case and agree in good faith to negotiate with one another, mediation can be used to successfully resolve a personal injury claim. We caution, however, that an effective attorney will always be extremely prepared and will demonstrate that in the event the mediation is unsuccessful, the opponent will very likely incur increased legal expenses and may very well pay more at a jury trial than they would at a successful settlement. If the case can be settled at mediation for a fair sum - great. If it cannot, a prepared attorney will typically obtain from a jury as much (or more) than could have been obtained earlier at a mediation.

It is a sad reality that innocent citizens are oftentimes injured by their own government. City and county employees and/or state employees operate vehicles on a day-to-day basis and like other drivers sometimes are guilty of negligence which cause considerable damage to innocent third parties. Because of the expansive conduct of governmental entities in virtually every aspect of our lives, there are many other real life scenarios whereby innocent third party citizens cam be and are injured by the acts of government employees. In such circumstances, there is always an issue as to whether the injured individual has a right to sue the government for any damages inflicted because of the longstanding doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

Setting aside for a moment whether one can sue the government successfully and overcome a defense of Sovereign Immunity, another hurdle the injured individual faces in these cases is dealing with statutory pre-suit notice requirements. These pre-suit notice requirements are often referred to as “ante-litem” notice provisions. What this means is that before a injured citizen can sue his or her government with a claim for money damages, they must give the government pre-suit notice of the claim so that the government has a sufficient opportunity to investigate the claim and determine whether the government has any liability and, if so, what damages are involved. Here in Georgia, if an injured individual has a claim against a municipality, they must provide notice to that municipality within six months of the date of the occurrence otherwise their claim is time barred. If they have a claim against a county, they must give notice within one year and the same is true for claims against state government. There are also specific methods by which these notices must be given so if the injured individual is acting without the advice of counsel, they could run afoul of the various ante-litem notice provisions. If they do, they may not be able to sue the government - even if their claim is meritorious. This is why we have referred to these ante-litem provisions in other blogs written on the subject as “Traps for the Unwary.”

If you or any member of your family are injured by a government employee, you should immediately confer with counsel so that pre-suit notice requirements can be observed and your claims not held by law to have been waived for failing to provide statutorily mandated ante-litem notices to the government entity involved.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has recently accepted an Application for Interlocutory Review of a very important victim’s rights statute in this state. Here we refer to a case in which we represent the Plaintiff involving a tolling provision for the statute of limitations for victims of crime. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 was enacted as part of the Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005 and will now be interpreted by the Court of Appals after a ruling in this appeal. Its tolling provision reads as follows:

The running of the period of limitations with respect to any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the victim of an alleged crime which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of such alleged crime committed in this state shall be tolled from the date of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action and tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated, provided that such time does not exceed six (6) years. (Emphasis Supplied.)

As is apparent from a review of the broad language employed by the Georgia Legislature, this statute is very important for victims of crime. Many victims of crime do not know that they have civil claims against third parties. If someone is raped in a motel, they may not be able to independently recover that a rapist was formerly an employee of the motel and had been negligently left with master keys to their motel rooms. A victim of an independent trucker who is driving under the influence of drugs may not know that the trucker was operating under an oral lease agreement with a third party. This might be very important if the independent trucker had no insurance and the statutory employer/lessor had good insurance. A victim of a drunk driver may not discover until after two years that the drunk was provided far too much alcohol by a bar that knew that he would be driving in violation of the Dramshop Act. In short, there are many real life scenarios where an innocent crime victim may not even initially know whether they have viable third party claim and may not be able to discover the existence of such a claim until they are able to get access to the criminal investigative file concerning their case, something that may not occur for over 2 years. Moreover, in many cases, criminal perpetrators are not even apprehended for over 2 years and even if they are apprehended in a timely manner, they may assert their Fifth Amendment privilege and therefore withhold from the victim crucial information concerning the possible involvement of third parties.

The case that is on appeal before the Georgia Legislature will decide whether the language of the statute quoted herein applies to third parties and criminals or only to criminal perpetrators solely. In the case our firm is handling, the Defendants contend that the language of the statute only tolls the statute of limitations for causes of action that victims of crime have against the criminal perpetrators only. However, the clear wording of the statute is so broad as to clearly encompass claims against third parties as well. Indeed, it appears that the Georgia Legislature recognizes that victims many times are not only traumatized physically and emotionally and thereby delayed in bringing civil actions because of such trauma, but also are usually unable to access and/or discover important evidence and information in their cases, particularly with regards to the possible involvement of third party actors.

Continue reading "Important Victim’s Rights Statute Under Review" »