Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

It seems that everyday our personal injury lawyers open the paper, we read about another wrongful death in the context of a high speed police chase. One such case occurred this past weekend in Augusta, Georgia when a Sheriff’s Deputy was chasing a 19-year old suspect. Initially the officer involved pulled the suspect over and was provided his ID and driver’s license. Thus, the officer knew who the suspect was and where he lived. While the officer went back to his car to check on his tags, the suspect took off. A chase commenced but during the chase the officer was advised by his supervisor to terminate the chase because of the danger to the public. The supervisor advised this officer not once, but twice to terminate the chase but he did not do so. The predictable result ensued, that being that while the suspect was fleeing at 80 to 85 miles per hour he ran through an intersection and broadsided another car with the result that an innocent third party was killed. Once again, a high speed police chase occurred involving a non-violent felony and an innocent person paid the price for this reckless disregard of proper police procedure with their life.

Finch McCranie, LLP recently filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Augusta within the last few weeks alleging another wrongful death in another high speed pursuit. In that case, the police were chasing a suspected shoplifter. Again, the danger presented by the offense that was the basis of the pursuit was far outweighed by the danger presented to the public by the chase itself. In that case, 3 people were killed including an unborn child. In the most recent case which occurred this past Saturday, what is most disturbing is that the officer continued to chase the known suspect after being advised that he should terminate his pursuit. Allegedly, the officer claims that the did not hear the directive given to him over his radio. While this seems questionable, it is clear that if the officer’s supervisor thought the pursuit should have been terminated the officer himself should have realized this well before the fatal collision.

What is most disturbing about these cases in Augusta is that they are representative of cases occurring throughout Georgia and elsewhere. Indeed, we had just posted an article to this Blog about the death of a 21 year old Sgt. at Fort Benning, Georgia where the police were chasing a juvenile for joyriding in a stolen pickup truck when this most recent death in Augusta occurred. Indeed, as of the writing of this entry to our blog, our lawyers have filed 6 different lawsuits involving 8 deaths all arising in the context of high speed pursuits.

What the public does not realize is that the number of victims nationwide in high speed pursuits is greater than the number of victims killed in the 911 destruction of the World Trade Towers. Indeed, the number of those killed and maimed in high speed pursuits are similar to the number of those killed and maimed in the Iraq war. This is a nationwide problem which is particularly acute here in Georgia. And yet, the chases (for non-violent offenders) continue and the innocent die. When will the madness stop?

Our attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP will continue to represent the interests of innocent victims. Hopefully, litigation will curb these unwarranted and dangerous police chases. The goal is to get the police community to recognize that they should only chase for violent offenders and should not chase when the danger to the public caused by the chase outweighs the danger presented by the suspect. If enough Georgia juries intervene and condemn these chases with their verdicts, hopefully, lives in Georgia will be saved.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

In February of this year, an active member of the military at Fort Benning, Sgt. Joanna Joy Ringer, age 21, was reportedly killed as yet another innocent victim in a police chase case. This time, the, innocent victim, Ms. Ringer, was killed because the police were chasing a 17 year old teenager for joyriding in a stolen pickup truck. Ms. Ringer, like all such victims, was simply at the wrong place, at the wrong time when the fleeing suspect ran head on into her car.

How many innocent people have to die before the police will understand that the dangers caused by a police chase are far greater than the dangers caused by a joyriding teenager? Why is it so important to law enforcement to recover a stolen pickup truck when the death penalty to the innocent is the likely result of using a high speed pursuits to do so? These questions remain after the death of Sgt. Ringer, and many more, about whether such pursuits should ever be authorized when a non-violent felony is involved.

The police take the position, of course, that their job is to enforce the law and that it is important that they catch those who break the law. We agree. On the other hand, a 17 year old teenager who is joyriding is not necessarily a grave risk of causing deadly harm to the public. And yet we know from statistics that one person in this country dies everyday during police chases. Police chases are very dangerous to the innocent members of the public. We submit that it is not justifiable for the police to use to what amounts to deadly force in pursuing suspects for non-violent offenses when it is clear that the dangers to the public caused by the chase itself outweighs the dangers presented by the suspect being pursued.

We recommend that our readers go to a website entitled PursuitSafety.org. There you will see some of the faces of 2,700 innocent victims of police chase cases. These haunting photographs hopefully will encourage law enforcement to review and change their policies. If not, litigation may be the best key to changing these policies. As in other areas of society, a lawsuit can cause change and lawsuits are clearly necessary to effectuate the charges that are needed in this area.

Finch McCranie, LLP will continue to proudly represent the innocent victims of these chases and will continue to file lawsuits on their behalf where it is clear that there has been a reckless disregard of proper police procedure. Again, the hope is that large verdicts against police departments may encourage them to reconsider their present posture in the matters. Chase? Yes - but only for those dangerous enough to expose the public to the dangers of the chase. Non-violent offenders do not meet this test.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Atlanta TV stations are reporting that this afternoon, a car veered into a bus stop during a police chase and struck four pedestrians. The incident was near Metropolitan Parkway and University Drive.

According to reports, the Atlanta Police were chasing three juveniles in a stolen vehicle when the car ran into the bus stop. One juvenile was apprehended at the scene while two others escaped.

Four of the people involved were injured, one critically. This is another instance of innocent civilians harmed and/or killed by police chases for non-violent offenses. The victims could have easily been your family members.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Our police chase injury lawyers have handled many cases involving the deaths of innocent civilians due to police chasing suspects for minor crimes. We have previously written about police departments that have adopted restrictive policies limiting chases and decreasing the chances that innocent civilians and police officers can be seriously injured or killed.

On May 30, 2007, in Forestville, Maryland, a police officer was chasing a motorcyclist for speeding. During the chase, the police officer tried to position his car to stop the speeding motorcyclist, but instead hit a civilian car that rolled down an embankment into oncoming traffic. This caused a seven car pile up injuring 15 and killing two innocent civilians. Among the injured were two police officers. The police car camera revealed that the officer was driving at times more than 120 m.p.h. as he drove onto the shoulder and back onto the highway.

Today, the police officer, Scott Campbell, was indicted by a Grand Jury on two counts of vehicular manslaughter for the May 30th crash. The indictment charges that Campbell, started the chase in violation of department policy. The police department policy permits officers to engage in high speed pursuits only if there is probable cause that the suspect used or threatened physical force or is involved in a hit and run accident resulting in serious injury or death.

The department policy states that an officer’s primary concern should be preservation of life, not capturing a suspect.

The indictment of an officer in connection with a police chase is extremely rare.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

We have written previously about the dangers of police chase cases. This week we read in the paper about a chase that occurred on January 24 involving a man fleeing the police in a stolen vehicle. As he was fleeing, allegedly with a police officer in pursuit, the suspect in the stolen vehicle engaged in increasingly dangerous behavior. Ultimately, he collided head-on with another innocent motorist, killing that motorist and decapitating a female passenger in his car. According to the news accounts, the deceased were ages 21 and 26 respectively. Yet another victim was hospitalized along with the stolen car’s driver.

This case is a classic example of why police chase cases should be limited to those involving forcible felonies. Why was it necessary to chase a suspect in a stolen car and endanger the lives of the public? In this case, two people were killed and two others seriously injured all because of the police’s intent to apprehend a suspect for a stolen vehicle. While little information is provided in the news account concerning the type of vehicle involved, our firm is currently investigating another case where three people died while the police were trying to capture a suspect driving a vehicle with a value of less than $5,000.00. Thus, we have a situation where the police are trying to arrest a suspect for stealing a $5,000.00 automobile and in the process kill three people. In the case reported in the newspaper, two people were killed because the police again were trying to apprehend a suspect in a stolen vehicle.

The continued carnage and unnecessary loss of life caused by these police chases needs to stop. Police departments should change their policies to allow chases only for violent felonies. There is no reason to endanger the public when trying to apprehend a suspect for a non-violent felony. If the suspect does not pull over and takes off, the police should let him go rather than killing the innocent members of the motoring public as happened here not to mention the passenger. The passenger may have been screaming at the top of her lungs for the suspect driver to pull over but she was killed too even though she may have done nothing wrong whatsoever. Was her life worth it?

In these cases, the death penalty is imposed on innocent members of the motoring public by dangerous pursuit policies which allow police officers to chase for non-violent offenses such as auto theft. It simply is not important enough to catch an auto thief to impose the death penalty on the very public the police are trying to protect. These chases should stop and they should stop now. Our firm will continue to resist these policies and practices by representing those who are the innocent victims of these dangerous high speed police chase cases.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our firm is working on a police chase metro Atlanta case involving an officer who has been in two separate high speed pursuit cases resulting in two deaths. We have learned in this case that another officer in the same department has also been involved in two other accidents that have resulted in four deaths. Thus, between these two officers within the same police department there have been 4 high speed pursuit cases we know of involving six deaths. Is the public being protected when police officers engage in these high speed police chases? We think not.

An officer cannot fire his service revolver into a crowded mall in order to stop a shoplifter. Most people understand that it would be too dangerous for an officer to fire his weapon in a crowded mall to apprehend a suspect for such a minor offense. In short, the danger to the public would far outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. And yet, in a police pursuit context, the police are firing their proverbial guns (engaging in chases) on crowded streets, sometimes in residential areas, sometimes at night and sometimes under circumstances where there are many innocent motorists on the road, and yet, even in those cases where the need to apprehend the suspect is far outweighed by the danger to the public, the chase proceeds. The question is why these practices continue to occur year after year in this country with no meaningful decrease in the carnage on the roads.

Regrettably, it appears that the deaths and injuries which do occur in these cases simply have not affected the right people. When the injured are the family of politicians, perhaps there will be a change in the law. If the next police chase victimizes a prominent politician’s family perhaps there will be an understanding of the dangers of these high speed pursuits. Until such time, the public will continue to be “entertained” by television shows depicting the excitement and adrenalin that one feels when viewing a high speed pursuit. We can assure the public that such adrenalin and excitement would not be felt if their loved one was killed as a result of a pursuit involving a minor offense such as shoplifting. Indeed, as of the writing of this blog, we are reviewing a case where a shoplifter was fleeing from a police officer and during that pursuit, two adults and a child were killed and another adult seriously injured. Was the price worth it? Again, we think not.

It appears that litigation is the best avenue currently available to decrease these unwise and unwarranted police practices. The police do not protect the public when they kill innocent members of the public they are sworn to protect. The police should not chase non-violent offenders. There are ways to capture these suspects through license tag registration information, radio traffic and other police practices. Even if we as a society have to let a shoplifter or traffic offender go, is this not the more prudent approach than to impose the death penalty on innocent third parties having nothing to do with the crime? If the reader says that he or she disagrees with this conclusion, then I would ask the reader to ask themselves why then should the police not fire their weapons in a crowded mall? The analysis is the same.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our wrongful death and serious injury lawyers work with our clients on a contingency fee basis. The contingent fee is perhaps the one device that gives seriously injured people, no matter what their financial means, an even break in the courtroom against giant corporations and insurance companies. Contingent fee practice has been an essential part of the United States justice system for more than a hundred years. It permits every American regardless of wealth or social standing the opportunity to pursue a valid claim against even the most powerful corporation or individual. In a large measure, it has made our judicial system the envy of the world. It is no surprise that it has been under almost constant attack for years by corporations and insurance companies.

Increasingly, there have been calls by organizations sponsored in secret by large corporations and insurance companies, to abolish the contingency fee. Big businesses and individuals who want to avoid accountability for their negligent and reckless acts are pushing for special protections in state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress. These wrongdoers have initiated a less obvious line of attack on the American consumer, an attack that directs itself not of the consumer, but an easier target, the lawyers that represent them. Many of these attacks are coordinated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Without the contingency fee, many people would never be able to bring a claim to redress wrongs done by large corporations and powerful individuals. In essence, the contingency fee allows a lawyer to advance his services and time in return for a percentage of the recovery. In this day and age, due to increasing burdens placed by the legislatures on claimants, the cost of bringing a lawsuit are extremely high. In fact, almost none of our clients could afford to bring a lawsuit without the contingency fee.

The assault on the contingency fee is nothing more than an attempt by powerful interests to deny access to justice to tens of thousands of Americans who are injured each year due to another’s wrongful acts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Brain Injury , Medical Malpractice , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Police Chases , Products Liability , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

In serious injury and death cases our attorneys consistently face challenges from the defense to the testimony of our highly qualified expert witnesses. These challenges are based upon the rule of evidence known as the Daubert standard.

The Daubert standard is a legal precedent set in 1993 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of expert scientific testimony during legal proceedings. In Daubert, the Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become the “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Trial judges were instructed to evaluate expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”.

A two-prong test of admissibility was established. The relevancy prong refers to whether or not the expert’s evidence fits the facts of the case. The relevancy requirement has always existed in the law.

The reliability prong was new. The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must derive his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The court then offered general observations of whether proffered evidence was based on scientific method including such things as empirical testing, peer review, the potential error rate, and whether the theory or technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In practice, this standard has been burdensome, and grossly unfair to claimants in courtrooms. Trial judges are simply in no better position than juries to serve as “gatekeepers” to scientific evidence. In fact, many of these judges bring their own biases to their determinations. One example given is that under this standard, if Christopher Columbus were required to appear in a courtroom during his lifetime using the Daubert standard, his opinion that the world is round would have been inadmissible.

As part of the so-called Governor’s tort reform of 2005, the Daubert standard was adopted by the state legislature for use in Georgia. However, bowing to pressure from the Prosecuting Attorney’s of the state, who realized how gross unfairness of the Daubert standard, the governor and legislature exempted criminal cases from the Daubert standard. However, catering to the demands of the insurance industry and large corporations, the legislature adopted the Daubert standard for civil cases.

Currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court is a case in which the Daubert standard is being challenged on constitutional grounds. An argument is being made that it denies equal protection to adopt the standard in civil cases and not in criminal cases. It will be very interesting to see how the Georgia Supreme Court handles this challenge, especially in light of the fact that in recent years, large insurance companies and corporations have thrown millions of dollars into the judicial races in attempts to elect candidates who will follow their agenda.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Brain Injury , Civil Procedure , Dangerous Drugs , Medical Malpractice , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Police Chases , Products Liability , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Finch McCranie, LLP currently represents three individuals who have been tragically added to the ever growing and long list of innocent victims either killed or seriously injured in a police chase case. In two of the cases we filed on behalf of these victims, the police department involved is seeking to have the claims dismissed based on an argument that the Georgia Legislature has allegedly abolished the legal doctrine joint and several liability. While the law does not support the government’s argument, nonetheless, this argument is likely to be seen in every police chase case filed in Georgia until such time as the Georgia Supreme Court has officially rejected it.

Georgia law has long followed the doctrine of joint and several liability. If two or more people acting in concert with one another (even though not associated with one another) nonetheless contribute to damages to an innocent third party through their actions either, or both, may be sued and either, or both, are 100% individually liable for the damage caused by their acts. In short, if the acts of one person combine with the acts of another to produce an injury to an innocent third party, Georgia law has long been that either or both parties may be sued and either or both parties held 100% liable for the full extent of the damages inflicted. This is in essence what the doctrine of joint and several liability doctrine has stated in Georgia for 200 years. Thus, in a police chase case, if the fleeing suspect causes the damage to the innocent third party, he may be sued. Also, if a police officer recklessly disregards proper police procedure (and thereby contributes to plaintiff’s damages) he may also be sued and held jointly liable. This is how the joint and several liability doctrine applies in a police chase case. Recently, however, jurisdictions sued in high speed police chase are contending that the Georgia Legislature allegedly changed this law in 2005 when the infamous “SB3" tort reform package was enacted into law.

One of the provisions of the tort reform package was an amendment to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 which does say that in those cases where the plaintiff is himself to some degree responsible for his own injuries that in such a limited context a jury may individually apportion damages against named defendants, and even non-parties, rather than holding all the responsible parties each 100% liable each for all of the plaintiff’s damages. What is noteworthy about this modification to the law, however, is that it only applies in those cases where the plaintiff himself was to some degree responsible for this own damages.

In virtually every police chase case we have seen, our clients are totally innocent third parties caught up in the chase. In most cases, the injured third party is simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and is crashed into either by the fleeing suspect or the police vehicle. In such circumstances, it is absurd for a police department to contend that the innocent third party somehow was responsible for creating his own damages. And yet, even though the innocent third party cannot be legitimately claimed to have in any way contributed to their own damages, police departments in Georgia and their attorneys are now asserting that such innocent victims should not recover damages under the longstanding joint and several liability doctrine but should instead be limited in their damages as if they somehow contributed to their own damages. In short, they seek to have juries apportion damages against the most responsible party (the fleeing suspect) thereby abrogating completely the joint and several liability doctrine for the police officer.

Continue reading "Denying Justice to Innocent Victims of Police Chases: New Defense Strategies By The Government " »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is a tool often overlooked by practitioners when it comes to available statistical data regarding vehicular accidents. For example, our firm has been handling several high speed police pursuit cases and in connection therewith obtained from the Federal Motor Carrier Administration information submitted to it on a nationwide basis to its Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Unfortunately, the statistics are likely under reported because there is no mandatory form which is utilized by all the states to report fatalities and motor vehicle accidents such as police pursuits. Nonetheless, what we saw is that from 1982 through 2004, 7,434 people were reported to FARS as being killed in high speed pursuit cases. The national average was approximately 350 deaths per year with approximately 20 deaths per year in Georgia.

The FARS reporting data also makes available to the public the number of fatalities from motor vehicle collisions involving commercial tractor trailers. Again, this data under-reports the extent of the problem but is still the best data we have. While the statistics do not show who was at fault in these accidents, nonetheless, the statistics are sobering. Indeed, from 1994 through the end of 2005, there were approximately 2,741 fatalities in Georgia. Regrettably, these statistics could be reduced were there a greater emphasis on safety. Nonetheless, what these statistics teach us is that people will continue to die on our public roads and highways in accidents involving commercial trucks and in situations involving high speed pursuits. We believe that these statistics prove that there is a greater need for regulation, not less, in both areas. While the current regulatory environment is not conducive to public safety, it appears that the best available tool to address these safety issues remains litigation. As the saying goes, “if you hit them in the pocketbook, maybe they’s start paying attention.” Because regulators have a “non-regulatory” free market approach today, trial lawyers today have the best chance of anyone to hold these companies accountable for their negligent acts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

In a case decided April 30, 2007, entitled Scott v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court held that a suspect fleeing from the police during a high speed police chase case has no Fourth Amendment right to be protected from the use of excessive force by the police against them. As we interpret this case, essentially, what this means is that a suspect assumes the risk of injury by the police during a police chase case.

In the Harris case, a 19 year old was fleeing from the police and the police employed a “pit maneuver” in order to knock the suspect’s car off the road. The pit maneuver is one in which the police hit the corner of the fleeing car with their car in order to force it off the road. In this case, when the suspect’s car left the road, it crashed rendering him a quadriplegic.

Harris filed suit against the police officer alleging that the officer had violated his Fourth Amendment rights against the use of excessive force. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the police office did not violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by utilizing the contested pit maneuver.

In ruling against the claimant, the Supreme Court noted that he intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in a reckless high speed flight. The Court obviously concluded that it was not reasonable for Harris to take the action that he took and that the deputy (Timothy Scott) was authorized to terminate the chase with force because of the suspect’s danger to the public. The Court specifically ruled that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high speed chase that threatened the lives of the public did not violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if the maneuver utilized by the police placed the fleeing suspect at risk of serious injury or death.

Continue reading "THE SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST FLEEING SUSPECT IN POLICE CHASE CASE" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases

Bookmark:

After years of litigation, the City of Hampton paid $1 million to the family of Grashaunda Banks to settle a wrongful death claim brought as a result of a high speed police chase that resulted in a deadly collision. The crash occurred on Hwy. 19/41 near midnight on July 23, 2000, near the Atlanta Motor Speedway.

The Plaintiff, Olivia Banks, alleged that her 22-year old daughter was killed as a result of a reckless disregard of police policy and procedure when City of Hampton Police Officer Jeremy Pirtle engaged in a high speed pursuit of Dwight Allen Dixon (at speeds in excess of 100 mph), allegedly because Dixon had committed a traffic violation. Dixon crashed head-on into the vehicle being driven by Grashaunda Banks as Dixon was fleeing from the officer. While there was some evidence that Dixon might also have been impaired, this evidence was disputed because the blood sample taken from Mr. Dixon (who was also killed in the collision) was lost for eight days and allegedly became contaminated before it was tested.

The Banks family alleged that it was a violation of established procedure for a police officer to dangerously pursue at high speeds a suspect who allegedly was guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense. The Plaintiff alleged that the risk of danger to the motoring public, including her innocent daughter, was too great to justify the deadly high speed pursuit of Dixon for a mere traffic violation.

While police chase cases have always been the subject of considerable public debate, apparently the City felt that it should settle the case rather than take its chances with a Clayton County jury. The sum of $1 million paid to settle the Banks wrongful death suit is believed to be one of the higher settlements in the state in a case involving a high speed police pursuit.

The settlement ended over five (5) years of litigation between the parties. Suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County because Dixon’s Death Certificate incorrectly stated that he lived in Fulton County. Two years later, it became known that Dixon had moved to Clayton County, approximately thirty (30) days before his death. The Banks family was forced to re-institute the lawsuit in Clayton County, only to have the City of Hampton transfer the case to Henry County.

Continue reading " HIGH SPEED POLICE CHASE CASE SETTLES FOR $1 MILLION" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Just a few weeks ago we blogged about the dangerous nature of police chase cases. See Blog entry entitled High Speed Police Chase Cases: An American Tragedy (2/15/07). Today we wake up with a headline in the Atlanta paper stating that “Two teens are dead and four others injured in a police chase case involving a juvenile that was driving a stolen vehicle.” According to the newspaper report of this incident, police in Clayton County, just outside of Atlanta, pulled over a joyriding juvenile who was in the process of providing a driver’s license to the investigating officer when word came over the police radio that the vehicle the teen was driving was stolen. The teenager took off and the police began to chase. Even though the police had obtained proof of the identify of the juvenile and knew that the only offense in question was a non-violent theft of a motor vehicle, according to the newspaper article, this chase lasted for over four (4) miles. As is so often the case in these dangerous pursuits, the juvenile driver lost control of his vehicle during the chase and crashed head on into several trees off the side of the road. The result: all too predictable. Two were killed and four others seriously injured.

As a result of this tragic situation, we see the same pattern emerge that we have seen in far too many cases. The police decide to chase for a non-violent felony and people are seriously injured and died. Why? Here, because of a stolen vehicle. The question, of course, is whether it was all worth it. We have two young people dead and four others seriously injured with thousands and thousands of dollars in medical expenses expected not to mention the tragedy and devastation sustained by the families of the deceased.

Of course, no one can defend the right of the juvenile suspect in fleeing from the police. The teenager should have cooperated with the police. And yet, past experience indicates that juveniles often flee for a variety of reasons, most predictably fear. Because they are young and inexperienced and afraid of the police, juveniles oftentimes do stupid things. Here, it is not likely that the juveniles would have killed themselves or anyone else had the police not chased them so furiously over four miles. If a chase lasts for any period of time at high speeds, particularly where a juvenile is involved, past experience indicates over and over and over again that there will almost certainly be tragic results.

When will the police learn that the price to the public is too great to continue in these ill-advised high speed police chases.? Yes: we want the criminals caught and prosecuted. But No: we do not want to inflict the death penalty or life sentences on either the public or those involved. While the juvenile that was driving paid the price with his life, his passengers were not driving and yet they have paid the price too. One of them is dead and four others are seriously injured. We hardly think it was worth it. Moreover, as we advanced in our earlier blog, we have three other cases with very similar facts and once again, we are confronted with the same troubling question that also appears in the other Georgia cases we are handling on behalf of other families devastated by these chases. Was the chase for a non-violent offense worth it? We think not.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases

Bookmark: