Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

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" »

Whistleblower litigation is an area in which the attorneys at Finch McCranie LLP specialize. These cases are generally brought under The False claims Act which Congress adopted during the Civil War to solicit the help of ordinary citizens in fighting contracting fraud. The law encourages citizens to bring suit on behalf of the U.S. government by ensuring that a portion of any damages or civil penalties will be shared with the person bringing the lawsuit.

Since Congress strengthened the law in 1986, whistleblower lawsuits have recovered almost 20 billion dollars, of which more than 2 billion dollars has gone to citizens.
In recent years these lawsuits have especially targeted Defense Department and health services fraud.

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a major case testing when whistleblowers who discover fraud in federal programs may sue in the name of the United States and collect some of the settlement. The case revolves around the issue of when whistleblower lawsuits might be kept out of court under a provision aimed at opportunistic lawsuits based simply on information publicly available.

The False Claims Act prohibits citizen lawsuits arising from public disclosures "in a congressional, administrative or (Government Accountability Office) report, hearing, audit or investigation." The question Monday was whether that exemption relates only to federal reports or blocks a lawsuit bringing a claim based on information publicly available in a state or local report.

The case before the Supreme Court is a North Carolina case in which an employee of a state conservation district alleged fraud tied to the county's participation in a federal disaster relief program. A federal trial judge rejected the lawsuit holding that a county audit had documented some of the problems. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed, saying only federal administrative reports, audits or investigations would have precluded a suit under the False Claims Act.

The United States Department of Justice has adopted the position that only federal reports would preclude a whistleblower lawsuit under the “prior disclosure” doctrine and argued this position at yesterday’s hearing.

Thirty states have joined the side of the North Carolina county urging the court to rule that the case should be thrown out.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has issued an important opinion in an ERISA case. In Longaberger Co. v. Kolt, No. 08-4432 Nov. 16, 2009. the court held an ERISA plan could enforce its reimbursement rights against an attorney who obtained a personal injury settlement on behalf of an insured.

The attorney negotiated a $135,000 settlement on behalf of a client who was involved in an automobile accident. Only $1,000 remained in his lawyer’s trust account after disbursing $86,000 to the client, and then taking $45,000 as an attorney fee and paying other lawyers involved in the case.

The client was an insured of the plaintiff, an employee welfare benefit plan. The plaintiff sued the attorney under ERISA, seeking reimbursement for $114,000 in medical bills paid on behalf of the client.

The court held that the plan was entitled to equitable restitution pursuant to §502(a)(3) of ERISA as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services Inc.

The court held that the fact that the attorney disregard the plans first lien and commingled the settlement funds did not defeat the claim for equitable relief, because under Sereboff, the plan was free to follow a portion of the settlement funds into the attorney’s hands.

Any attorney handling a claim in which there is or may be a claim for reimbursement from a health insurance carrier must carefully examine the plan to determine if the reimbursement language is proper and if the plan is self-insured. Failure to do so can have serious financial and legal consequences.

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a very interesting case. The question before the Court in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, v. McGhee and Harrington is : Do citizens who have been framed by unscrupulous prosecutors for crimes they did not commit have a right to sue the prosecutors when the fraud is finally exposed?

Most public officials have qualified immunity, which means that they can’t be sued personally for actions taken in the course of their public duties unless it can be shown that they willfully violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. In almost all cases qualified immunity is enough to prevent suits against public officials.

The position taken by the federal government and being joined in by many state’s attorney generals is not that prosecutors should only be held accountable for wrongful convictions if it can be proven that they proactively and intentionally created false evidence or violated the clear legal and ethical requirements of their position.

But, the government is taking the position that all prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits for actions they take even when they send innocent people to prison for life by fabricating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

Under this argument no prosecutor could ever be sued under any circumstances even if it can be proven conclusively that they intentionally faked evidence and lied to the court, destroying the life of an innocent person.

According to briefs filed in the case, prosecutors in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, solicited false testimony implicating two innocent African-American teens in the murder of a retired police officer in 1977. At trial, the false testimony led to their convictions and they were sentenced to life in prison.

After the false testimony and other exculpatory evidence was discovered, the two men, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were released after 25 years in prison. They then filed a lawsuit against the prosecutors.

Lawyers for Mr. McGhee and Mr. Harrington argued that police officers who fabricate evidence do not enjoy such absolute protection from a civil lawsuit. They say prosecutors who actively participate in the pre-trial investigation of a case must be held to the same standard as police officers, detectives, and agents, who can be sued if they violate clearly-established constitutional rights.

Pleading standards in Federal Courts have been dramatically impacted by two recent United States Supreme Court decisions. These decisions, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, raised the standard that parties bringing a lawsuit must meet to avoid having their cases dismissed.

At issue is how specific a pleading must be under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that a complaint include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 12 allows for the dismissal of complaints that are vague or that fail to state a claim. Under Iqbal, a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, many courts are now requiring an almost impossible to meet standard demanding specific facts that aren't often available until the discovery phase.

Congress is now preparing to become involved in this controversy over the pleading standard for civil lawsuits. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., filed legislation Wednesday designed to return the standard to what it was prior to 2007.

Specter has accused the Court's majorities of making an end run around longstanding precedent with the two recent cases. He issued the following statement.

"The effect of the Court's actions will no doubt be to deny many plaintiffs with meritorious claims access to the federal courts and, with it, any legal redress for their injuries. I think that is an especially unwelcome development at a time when, with the litigating resources of our executive-branch and administrative agencies stretched thin, the enforcement of federal antitrust, consumer protection, civil rights and other laws that benefit the public will fall increasingly to private litigants."

Specter has introduced a bill which directs federal courts to interpret the rules as the Supreme Court did in the 1957 decision in Conley v. Gibson. The bill falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee on which Specter sits. The bill is certain to garner strong opposition from big business groups, and, support from consumer groups.

The Supreme Court rulings seem ironic in that the conservative majority claims to embrace precedent, yet was eager to throw it away in these two rulings which are seen as very beneficial to big business.

This past week, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling that was favorable to victims of crime who have civil tort claims arising out of the criminal acts perpetrated against them. The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations is tolled for victims of crime for any claims arising out of the criminal acts perpetrated against them until such time as the criminal prosecution of the perpetrator is terminated. See Beneke v. Parker, ___ Ga. ___ No. S08G2078, (2009).

What is interesting about this new Supreme Court opinion is that our law firm had written an article about the Victim’s Right Statute enacted by the Legislature and codified in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 over one year before this opinion was rendered. In this article which was published in the Georgia Trial Lawyers magazine “The Verdict”, our firm had presaged this opinion by stating that it was likely that the statute might protect victims of traffic crimes by tolling the statute of limitations in their cases. It was pointed out to members of Bar that if they had a case where there client had been victimized by a traffic violations they might be able to circumvent the statute of limitations by relying on the new statute. We specifically pointed out in our article that the Victim’s Crime Act could be used in cases where there were violations of criminal laws as pertains to the operation of a motor vehicle.

The lawyer in the Beneke case read our article and used our arguments to win this case for his client. In the Beneke v. Parker case, the Supreme Court held that the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 encompasses a violation of the Uniform Rules of the Road. The Court wrote to impose a more stringent definition of “crime” within the context of the statute would render superfluous its language that “the statute of limitation is tolled from the date of the alleged crime or “the act” giving rise to such action in tort” until the prosecution or other termination of such crime or “act.” In short, even a traffic violation which results in criminal charges being filed against the perpetrator can be used under this new statute to toll the statute of limitations for the victim of the crime until such time as the criminal perpetrator’s case has been disposed of in the criminal system.

To see a copy of our article, please hit the link provided for further detail on the possible impact this new statute may have on you or a member of your family if you are a victim of a crime.

Continue reading "Georgia Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Victims of Crime" »

Our Atlanta lawyers recently completed a case involving a tire failure on a truck.. This past Tuesday, in a case being watched nationwide by product-liability attorneys, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court a ruling that allows a wide-ranging review of Cooper Rubber & Tire Co. records.

The case in which the ruling was issued, involves Cooper made the tires on a Chrysler 15-passenger van, which rolled several times after the left rear tire blew as Utah State University students were headed back to campus from a field trip in northern Utah's Box Elder County. Eight students and an instructor died in the Sept. 26, 2005, crash, and two students survived with severe injuries.

The survivors and the families of all but the instructor and another student are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, filed a year after the accident. The families settled their claims last year against DaimlerChrysler Corp., the maker of the van.

The lawsuit alleges that Cooper Tire knew the design and manufacture of its tires were faulty and did not fix the problems. The plaintiffs’ attorneys wanted to see documents pertaining to the design and manufacture of similar Cooper Tires.

A United States Magistrate Judge initially ordered that Cooper Tire afford wide access to company documents requested by lawyers for the victims of the crash and their families. His ruling was later affirmed by the United States District Court. Cooper Tire then appealed the order and argued at a hearing last year before the Denver-based 10th Circuit that it would require the company to divulge trade secrets and other proprietary information.

The appeals court rejected Cooper’s argument that the order was too broad. The lawsuit, brought in U.S. District Court in Utah a year after the accident, had been stalled for 15 months while the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals considered Cooper Tire's appeal.

This past month our firm handled two different cases which both illustrate how to get the best possible settlement for a client in a personal injury case. It is oftentimes said that many cases settle on the courthouse steps. This is true. The reason for this is because if the case is not settled, it will have to be presented to a jury at considerable expense and with great time and effort by all parties. The uncertainty of what a jury might do, either returning a greater award than the defense would like to pay or a lesser award that the plaintiff hopes to get is the basis for compromise. However, unless counsel for a plaintiff who has been injured through the negligence of another is ready for trial it is almost guaranteed that before will not receive the best possible settlement for his or her client.

The two cases we have handled here recently are like many others we have handled in the past. Settlement offers were not made until it was demonstrated to the insurance carrier that counsel was ready for trial and was ready in a professional manner to present the case in such a manner as to likely receive from a jury more than the defense was previously willing to pay. In both cases, no offer was made until the case reached the courthouse steps. If counsel had not prepared the case of trial diligently and professionally through taking videotaped depositions, preparing demonstrative exhibits for the jury, submitting Requests to Charge relative to the legal and factual issues involved, marking all exhibits, subpoenaing all witnesses, etc., the insurance company would likely have gambled and defended the case will full knowledge that plaintiff’s counsel was not prepared. However, once the defense attorney and the insurance company got to the courthouse steps and realized that their adversary (in this case our firm) was prepared to proceed professionally, they offered to settle the matters for the actual value of the cases. In short, they made an offer of what we all along had been willing to accept thus obviating the need for a jury trial.

The main point of this blog entry is to emphasize something that we have known for years but which the public may not fully appreciate. Cases do not settle for their maximum value unless they are properly prepared by experienced trial counsel. In neither of the cases we have referenced, would there ever have been an offer of settlement made at any time unless the case had been properly prepared. Once the insurance carrier realized that plaintiff’s counsel was prepared to proceed in front of the jury and could, in fact, proceed in a professional manner and would make an effective presentation, then and only then did they pay the fair settlement value of the case. Had our firm not been prepared to proceed as professional advocates on behalf of our clients we would not have achieved the best possible settlement for our clients. The two cases that we write about were both very tough cases on liability, which were hotly contested. The insurance carriers may have continued to make no offer if they believed that plaintiff’s counsel was not prepared to put up a strong case. Once plaintiff’s counsel showed up on the courthouse steps with subpoenas, witnesses, exhibits, videotaped presentations and all the other necessary ingredients for a successful trial, the insurance company folded and the clients received fair settlements.

If one is to receive the best possible settlement for a client, one must be prepared to proceed to trial. Accordingly, if a client wants to make sure that he or she receives the best possible settlement in their case, they to make sure that they have a trial attorney that is prepared to present their case to a jury in the event the insurance company is not prepared to make a realistic and fair settlement offer. The best way to insure the latter is to be prepared for trial. Thus, any person injured by the acts of another through negligence or otherwise should always attempt to find an experienced trial attorney to represent their interests. This is the best way of insuring the best possible settlement results in any given case. Moreover, if the case cannot be settled, the client will have the satisfaction of knowing that their attorney can present the case to the jury, hopefully, in such a manner as to insure a successful verdict.

On the way to work today I saw an automobile accident that had just occurred. A lady had been rear-ended by an automobile on the interstate highway. The cars were very badly damaged and it was clear that one of the drivers was injured. The ambulances had not yet arrived.

As I drove by the accident scene, I thought to myself, “I wonder how this unfortunate lady will find a competent Georgia automobile accident attorney to represent her interests effectively, competently, honestly, ethically and professionally?” Like any other choice a consumer must make involving an important personal matter, consumers must beware of who they hire to represent their interests in these cases. Not all lawyers are created equally nor do they have the same professional abilities. While there are many that advertise their services to the pubic, the public should investigate the background of any attorney to make sure that they are the proper attorney to handle their case.

Lawyers are no different from doctors. While there are many surgeons out there, not all surgeons are equally adept at certain surgical procedures. Some have a better reputation than others, some have greater experience than others, some have a better educational pedigree and background which qualify them for more sophisticated forms of surgery. In a automobile accident case where the person is not seriously injured, the differences in skill and competency may not matter. However, in a case involving serious injuries, lost wages and the possibility of a permanent disability, the greater the skill level of the attorney, the more likely it is that the client will receive competent representation.

When a client is looking for an attorney to handle their automobile accident case, like the lady who was involved in the accident witnessed this morning, the client should review the attorney’s educational background at a minimum. Where did they go to college? Where did they attend law school? How long have they been practicing law? What is their practice’s emphasis? Is the attorney active in professional organizations and/or otherwise active in the Bar? Has the attorney or their firm published articles in the field? Has the attorney been asked to speak at seminars on various topics pertaining to serious automobile collisions? Has the attorney tried many cases before a jury or does the attorney have at track record of settling everything and trying nothing?

The attorneys at Finch McCranie have handled hundreds upon hundreds of serious automobile accident cases over the years involving wrongful death, paralysis, amputation, neck, back, leg, internal and brain injuries. Having handled many hundreds of cases over the years, our attorneys have extensive experience in dealing with serious automobile accident cases. Our attorneys have been asked to speak at seminars helping to educate other lawyers in the field. Our attorneys have published articles in the area and have tried many cases to verdict involving wrongful death and serious injury. In short, the attorneys at Finch McCranie possess the qualifications one would need and desire for someone in need of competent and professional legal services. While there are other good attorneys throughout the state that possess similar qualifications, regrettably, there are many attorneys who advertise such services but never go to court, or rarely, have not published in the field nor spoken at seminars, possess little or no experience in dealing with sophisticated complex cases, and yet will still take such a case. Because lawyers possess different skill sets based on their experience, qualifications and background, a potential client looking for a good lawyer to handle a serious automobile case should investigate their lawyer’s background and qualifications before retaining their services.

Our Georgia truck accident lawyers see many instances in which truck drivers and trucking companies destroy evidence after the collision. The law has fashioned a remedy for this type of conduct - spoliation.

Spoliation refers to the destruction or failure to preserve evidence that is necessary to contemplated or pending litigation. Bouve and Mohr, LLC v. Banks, 274 Ga. App. 758, 618 S.E. 2d 650 (2005). Spoliation creates the presumption that the evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator. See, Baxley v. Hakiel Industries, Inc., 282 Ga. 312, 647 S.E. 2d 29 (2007); American Multi–Cinema, Inc. v. Walker, 270 Ga. App. 314, 605 S.E. 2d 850 (2004).

Proof of spoliation raises a rebuttable presumption against the spoliator that the evidence favored the opposing party. This fact alone renders summary judgment inappropriate. Baxley v. Hakiel Industries, Inc., Id; Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 484 S.E. 2d 249 (1997).

Thus, one who destroys or fails to preserve relevant evidence will be subject to a charge that had the evidence not been destroyed or preserved it would have favored the opposing party.

In Langlois v. Wolford, 246 Ga. App. 209, 539 S.E.2d 565 (2000), the Defendant driver left the scene of the collision before the police arrived so that a drug/alcohol screen could not be conducted. He later denied being impaired. The Court held that by avoiding the drug/alcohol screen, he had committed spoliation of evidence of his impairment at the time of the collision.

In J.B. Hunt v. Bentley, 207 Ga. App. 250, 427 S.E.2d 499 (1993), the Court had occasion to consider spoliation in the context of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. In J.B. Hunt, the Defendants destroyed a driver’s log book which is required to be maintained under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The Court held that this destruction entitled the Plaintiffs to a presumption that the logs would have shown that the driver violated hour of service limitations established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and supported an award of punitive damages.

Additionally, in J.B. Hunt, the Court held that the destruction of vehicle inspection reports, which are required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, raised a presumption that the truck was not in a safe operating condition, and also supported the award of punitive damages.

The case of Wanke v. Lynn’s Transportation Company, 836 F. Supp. 587 (Ind. 1993), presented the issue of spoliation involving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation §382.303 which requires a post accident drug/alcohol screen. In Wanke, the truck driver involved in a collision failed to submit to the required test.

The Court found that the driver had committed spoliation of evidence, reasoning that “the jury could find, however, that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to a passive spoiliation(sic) allowing any suspected evidence of drug or alcohol to pass through Mr. Marsh’s system.” The Court further held that the failure to take the drug test “makes the fact of consequence to the action – Mr. Marsh’s intoxication at the time of the collision – more probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Continue reading "Truck Accident Cases and Destruction of Evidence In Georgia" »

When I speak to potential clients about claims against government employees and entities, they are often startled to learn about the antiquated but harsh doctrine of sovereign immunity. Many states have made changes to their laws to minimize the impact of this legal doctrine upon the innocent. However, in many circumstances, states like Georgia still employ the doctrine to defeat the claims of those injured by government actors. While some improvements in the law have been made, regrettably, they have not been sufficient to address all claims against government actors.

The policy reason behind the doctrine of sovereign immunity is to protect the public purse from claims made by citizens against their government. The theory seems to be that if a citizen sues the government for acts of negligence and money is collected, then the bill will have to be paid by taxpayers out of the public purse. In today’s modern society, however, with insurance being available to protect all government agencies just as in the private sector, the reason behind the doctrine seem to be less than compelling. Succinctly stated, the only public monies being paid are the amount of the premiums and the public is not being called upon to pay the claims per se. This being the case, a strong argument could be made that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be completely abolished. Nonetheless, it is alive and well in Georgia and elsewhere.

The principal exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity involves governmental vehicles. If a government employee is driving a county, city or state vehicle and they injure a third party, then typically the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been waived in this state. Nonetheless, for many other claims, when a government actor or employee damages a third party through acts of negligence, oftentimes it is the case that no claim can be filed because unless there has been an express legislative waiver of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the law presumes that the government cannot be sued and that its sovereign immunity is maintained.

In those cases where there has been a waiver of sovereign immunity, as we have written before, there are still “Traps for the Unwary” when it comes to bringing claims against the government. Typically, whether the claim be against a municipality, county or state government official or employee, an ante litem written notice of claim must be filed before suit can be brought. There are time limits for these demands, typically six (6) months to one year which must be scrupulously observed. If not, once again, the doctrine of sovereign immunity will be invoked to have the claim dismissed.

For any potential client that has a claim for damages arising out of the acts of a government employee or agency, one must always be aware of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Because this is a complex area of the law, obviously, any citizen with a potential claim against his or her government should confer with counsel as soon as possible.

Georgia Court Watch is a project of Georgia Watch, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group committed to strengthening the rights of consumers in Georgia. It has recently issued its annual report on Georgia appellate courts. The reports shows that, contrary to the statements of many politicians, the Georgia Appellate judges are not activists and not overly consumer friendly.

The report analyzed the activity on payday loan, insurance coverage, medical misdiagnosis, and other significant consumer issues. The “2007 Annual Report” identifies and profiles the most noteworthy consumer-related decisions released by the appellate courts throughout the year, and identifies emerging trends.

“Many of the decisions reached by the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals significantly impact the rights that consumers have under law,” said Georgia Watch Executive Director Allison Wall. “Georgia Watch launched this project to provide ongoing, thoughtful, fact-based analysis.”

Notable consumer cases discussed include:

Glenn v. State, a case in which the court upheld Georgia’s Payday Lending Law. Two individuals convicted of issuing payday loans argued that the statewide ban on payday lending was unconstitutionally vague and did not specifically prohibit the schemes they utilized in issuing loans, such as a “sales-leaseback” of a cell phone or coffee maker. The lenders also claimed they were not subject to the ban because they were located out-of-state.

Kaminer v. Canas, in which the court upheld the two-year statute of limitations for medical misdiagnosis, regardless of futures failures to properly diagnosis, even in the presence of a patient’s additional or significantly worsened symptoms. In Georgia, a claim must be filed within two years of the date of the first misdiagnosis, whether or not the patient knows they have been misdiagnosed. In Kaminer v. Canas, the patient unsuccessfully argued that repeated misdiagnosis over a decade of treatment by multiple medical providers should have restarted the statute of limitations.

Dees v. Logan, in which the court established that insurance companies are prohibited from creating offset clauses to reduce the amount owed to drivers who purchased uninsured motorist (UM) insurance. Offsets deny policyholders benefits already purchased that are needed to cover medical and property damage resulting from an accident with an underinsured driver. The court ruled that insurance policies containing offsets for personal injury benefits are in conflict with Georgia’s Uninsured Motorist Act. This year, the Georgia General Assembly responded to this decision by passing Senate Bill 276, which expressly permits insurance carriers to use offsets for workers’ compensation benefits, effectively overturning part of this decision. SB 276 also expanded drivers’ access to UM coverage.

It is well established that failure to comply with an ante-litem notification provision within the time required by law is a bar to any right of action. See Mattox v. Bailey, 221 Ga. App. 546, 472 S.E. 2d 130 (1996). However, an ante-litem time requirement has been held to be, in itself, a form of statute of limitations, with all general principles applicable to statutes of limitation also applying to ante-litem time restrictions, including tolling provisions. See Howard v. State, 226 Ga. App. 543, 487 S.E. 2d 112 (1997); City of Atlanta v. Barrett, 102 Ga. App. 469, 471, 116 S.E. 2d 654 (1960). This being the case, if a victim/client is late in filing an ante-litem notice with a municipality, county or with the State under the State Tort Claims Act, it would appear that the statute under consideration would also provide relief to such a victim/client based on the language cited tolling the statute of limitations.
Our firm was recently retained by a gentleman whose wife was killed during a police chase. The wife was an innocent third-party caught up in the chase. This particular client had hired a previous attorney who did not file an ante-litem notice with the County involved within twelve (12) months. However, the fleeing suspect was prosecuted by law enforcement authorities and the prosecution ended only a month ago. Obviously, our position will be that the statute of limitations for the entire cause of action was tolled and thus the ante-litem notice we will be filing on his behalf is still timely. Again, this is another area of the law which will have to be explored.
When the Victims Restitution Act of 2005 was enacted, the Legislature stated in its preamble that the purpose of the Act was among other salutary goals “to substantially revise the laws of this state relating to the conduct of criminal trial and the impact of the criminal justice system on victims of crime; to amend Article V of Chapter 3 of Title IX of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to tolling of limitations in civil cases, so as to provide for a statute of repose in certain tort actions brought by victims of crimes against the persons accused of such crimes, to amend Title XVII of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal procedure . . .” Given that a specific purpose of the new Act was to toll the limitations in civil cases so as to provide for a statute of repose in tort actions brought by victims of crimes, counsel in the future should always be cognizant of the existence of this relatively unused, untested and very interesting law. Because the language of the statute is so broad, particularly in view of its remedial purposes, we believe it can and will benefit tort claimants in the future where defendants have been charged with crimes arising out their tortious acts.

As Georgia personal injury lawyers know, the typical statute of limitations for a bodily injury case in Georgia is two years from the date of the occurence at issue. However, in cases involving victims of criminal acts who have potential civil causes of actions against those who brought about injury to them, there are some nuances of Georgia law that all attorneys in this field should know.
The purpose of this entry is to acquaint the Plaintiff’s bar with a very important but little known statute. The statute at issue, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99, was passed as part of the “Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005.” It became effective July 1, 2005 and 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 commission of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action in 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.
Given that virtually every automobile accident involves misdemeanor criminal charges against a negligent driver (who presumably violated the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road and was charged via a citation), it is submitted that in virtually every automobile accident tort case, this statute could potentially extend the statute of limitations from 2 years to 6 years. The same is true for any tort case (particularly intentional torts) resulting in criminal charges against a defendant. While the new statute has yet to be interpreted by any Georgia court, there are many interesting legal issues that may emerge in the future with respect to it.
Our firm first became aware of this statute in the context of two wrongful death actions we were prosecuting on behalf of separate families in Canada. These two deaths had occurred in a very bad tractor-trailer accident. While preparing those cases for trial, we contacted another person who had been injured in the same accident. This particular person lived in the state of Florida. When we first contacted the individual about providing a deposition for our cases, two years had already passed since the accident occurred. The witness, nonetheless, asked if our firm could assist him in bringing claims against the trucking company responsible for the collision. Because of the passage of time and also because we had a conflict of interest representing a witness we needed to depose for our other clients, we declined. However, when we later settled the two wrongful death cases and advised the witness his deposition was no longer needed, he again asked if we could be of service to him. Even though the otherwise applicable two-year statute of limitations had arguably run, because the tractor-trailer driver had been charged with vehicular homicide in connection with the deaths in our other two cases and because our conflict no longer existed, we agreed to file claims on the new client’s behalf and to assert in his case that the statute of limitations had been tolled since he was a “victim” of a crime which had been committed in this state.

Continue reading " TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN TORT CASES FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME " »