Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Thirteen (13) people have died (and many more injured) as a result of burns and other injuries sustained in the explosion at the Imperial Plant in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Investigators have expressed the opinion that sugar dust ignited and caused the explosion which resulted in these injuries and deaths. Because most of the people burned, injured or killed as a result of the explosion were employees of Imperial Sugar, unfortunately, they will be barred by law from suing their own employer. This is the state of law in Georgia. Workers’ Compensation benefits are available to injured employees but injured employees cannot sue their employer. The one exception to this “non-suit” rule is where a third party’s acts contributed to the injuries and/or caused the same. The employer still cannot be sued, but other “third party” companies can be sued if their acts contributed to the damages sustained.

From newspaper reports, it appears that Imperial Sugar contracted with a company called Stokes Contracting to clean sugar dust at the plant. Obviously, a full investigation would be required to see what the contractual duties and undertakings were, but assuming the newspaper reports are true, those injured and/or killed may have claims against Stokes Contracting and/or any other entity that provided such cleaning services. If the failure to properly clean the sugar dust out of the plant was a proximate cause of the explosion, then there could be third party liability claims brought against that third party, in this instance, apparently, Stokes Contracting.

Cases of this nature are always tragic for the families involved and for those seriously burned or injured. While only time will tell whether there are valid third party claims to be made, one would hope that the injured and severely burned would have remedies other than those provided under Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation statutory scheme. The Georgia Worker’s Compensation statutory scheme is quite limited in the remedies it provides to those injured on the job. For example, pain and suffering is not awarded at all and lost wage benefits are typically quite low, usually below $500.00 per week, which is very difficult for those who have been injured to live on. While Workers’ Compensation medical benefits are good, because these types of burn injuries can last for years and years, it is evident that those involved in these incidents will suffer for a lifetime and yet they receive no pain and suffering compensation under Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation scheme. This it is why it is important that someone involved in an incident of this nature confer with competent counsel to make sure that any third party remedies against third parties who may be also liable for their damages can be pursued.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability , Torts , Workers Compensation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our Georgia injury lawyers are accustomed to seeing cases involving horrible injury and cases of death caused by all types of accidents but burn cases are at the top of the list. We were discussing the news accounts today in Savannah reporting that firefighters found three, and perhaps as many as six, bodies in the wreckage of a still-burning sugar refinery leveled by an explosion overnight. In addition to the death cases, dozens of employees have been injured, many critically burned. Officials suspect sugar dust, which can be volatile, as the cause of the explosion. Reportedly the explosion happened in a storage silo where refined sugar is stored until it is packaged.

Obviously all of the injured employees will immediately be entitled to workers compensation benefits, including payment of all medical bills but given the very limited disability benefits available under the workers compensation laws of Georgia, this is very little consolation to the injured. Having litigated products liability cases involving injury and death, we wonder whether there are some third parties who may be liable for this explosion. Surely, this huge sugar refinery was aware of the potential danger posed by sugar dust. Was there a system in place which failed? Was ventilation machinery defective or not properly maintained by third party entities hired by the refinery? All of these questions and more need to be explored in order to adequately protect the interests of injured workers and the families of those who died in this tragedy.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability , Products Liability , Torts , Workers Compensation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

We read in the newspaper this week about the death of a maintenance man at a local school system when he was electrocuted while trying to change a fixture at the elementary school. While the newspaper article did not provide many details, it was curious to us that a maintenance man would be killed while simply trying to change out a light fixture. This raises the obvious issue of whether there is third party negligence because the electrical system obviously had some problems within it, presumably hidden from the worker. In any event, this sad and tragic case is reminiscent of other cases we have handled in the past involving electrocutions.

Over the years, we have handled wrongful death and other serious injury cases arising from electrocutions. In the cases we have handled, the person being electrocuted is almost always a worker who is performing some task. Typically, the worker is unaware of the danger to himself while performing the work. If the worker survives, electrocution injuries can be very serious and have long term consequences. Typically, anyone electrocuted while on the job unfortunately dies because electrocution almost by definition is usually a fatal event.

While the facts have not yet been reported as to the reasons behind this death, in order to prevent similar incidents from occurring, it is necessary that both OSHA and state officials conduct a thorough investigation of the underlying facts. There is no doubt but there was a root cause of this tragedy which must be determined so that lessons can be learned and future similar cases avoided.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Having seen past injuries and deaths occur because theater safety principles were disregarded in using orchestra pits in Atlanta, our Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog attorneys shuddered upon reading that it had happened again in Atlanta. A 17 year-old dancer wearing a Panda costume reportedly suffered critical injuries when she fell some 12 feet into the lowered orchestra pit of the Fox Theater, during a performance of the "Nutcracker" by the Atlanta Ballet.

The orchestra pit contained no orchestra, but was apparently lowered to this great depth anyway, without "fall protection" measures that were sufficient to prevent such a long fall by the young dancer, a high-school student. As it should, OSHA is reportedly investigating the incident.

For our attorneys, it brought back lessons that should have been learned in the theater world when a young boy died after a fall in 2000, through a concealed opening into the unprotected orchestra pit at the Atlanta Civic Center. He survived in a coma for more than a year as he was cared for by his parents, two of our most remarkable clients ever.

The evidence we gathered in that case showed that theater safety principles are too often ignored, until they result in life-threatening injuries or deaths. At the Civic Center, it was most disturbing to learn that a man had died before our young client, when the man fell into the unprotected orchestra pit from the stage.

It was also shocking for us to discover that two children had fallen through the same opening into the orchestra pit in 1995--and yet the orchestra pit was still left unprotected. Our theater safety experts documented that such injuries and deaths are far too foreseeable--and avoidable--when proper attention to basic safety rules is practiced.

While the settlement of that case at the Civic Center was reportedly one of the largest ever paid by the City of Atlanta (and there were other defendants as well), the family's nightmare was in no way erased.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the young dancer, and we wish her a speedy recovery. We hope that theater professionals heed the lessons of theater safety to protect performers and patrons from preventable injuries.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Hotels and motels are beginning to be held liable in tort for their negligence in failing to protect customers from known bed bug infestations. Bed bugs are making a comeback in the United States for several reasons which include, increasing international travel, more conservative use of pesticides and the failure of hotels and motels to take appropriate and effective steps to eliminate known infestations. The conduct of some hotels and motels amounts to gross negligence.

I recently read a U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Cir) decision affirming a punitive damage award of $196,000.00 each to a brother and sister against a hotel chain. The facts of the case were egregious because the management of the 200 room hotel knew they had a serious infestation, did little to eliminate the problem and continued to rent rooms that had been put on their “Do Not Rent” list. The Court held the hotel’s failure to either warn guests or take effective measures to eliminate known bedbug infestation amounted to fraud.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability

Bookmark:

In Georgia, owners and occupiers of land or buildings owe certain duties to those who come on the premises. The duties vary according to the relationship between the owner and the person coming onto the premises. The mere fact that one owns or occupies land or a building does not make one liable for injuries sustained by persons who have entered onto the land or the premises. It is a commonly accepted in Georgia law that the owner of a building or land is not the insurer of the safety of those who enter the property.

In general, the respective duties of care owed are determined by the person’s status while on the property. There are three categories by which the status of one on property is classified ---- trespasser, licensee, and invitee.

A trespasser is one who enters upon the property of another wrongfully and without express or implied permission for the trespasser’s own benefit or amusement.

The distinction between an invitee and a licensee is generally defined by a business relations rule. If the injured person at the time of the injury had business relations with the owner or occupant of the premises that would render his presence of mutual aid or benefit to both, the person is considered an invitee. If, however, the presence on the premises is for the persons own convenience, as in merely accompanying another, the person is a licensee.

The only duty owed a trespasser is not to injure him willfully and wantonly. A person who has the status of licensee is owed a duty greater than that owed a trespasser. This duty has been described as a duty not to expose a licensee knowingly to an unreasonable risk of harm. An invitee is owed the highest degree of care by the owner. In the case of an invitee, the owner is liable for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.

When a person’s status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee is a matter of disputed fact, a jury under appropriate instructions from the Court must resolve these issues.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability

Bookmark:

Atlanta has previously been identified as one of the most dangerous large metropolitan area in the country for pedestrians. Although statistics are not always accessible, in the calendar year 2001, for example, 64 pedestrians were reported killed in Atlanta. Throughout the State of Georgia, more than two-thirds (2/3) of pedestrian fatalities occurred on neighborhood streets, which helps explain why pedestrian injury is the second leading cause of death for children age 5 to 9. Another problem, particularly prevalent in Atlanta, are unsafe sidewalks. While the City does not maintain statistics on the number of people who are injured while using city sidewalks, anyone who lives in the Atlanta area knows that city sidewalks are often in a state of disrepair and are dangerous to pedestrians who might wish to use them. Sidewalks in metropolitan Atlanta also rarely meet the needs of people with disabilities who make up a significant portion of the population. Despite federal requirements and long past deadlines, the City of Atlanta has been slow to take action to mitigate barriers that prevent people with disabilities from safely using the City’s sidewalks.

At a City Counsel work session in February of this year, Public Work Commissioner David Scott estimated that one-fourth (1/4) of Atlanta’s sidewalks were in need of repair. Mr. Scott also conceded that the problem with sidewalk maintenance in Atlanta could not be resolved with the resources at hand. Indeed, less than $125,000.00 is available in the City’s budget for maintenance issues, thus allowing for limited emergency maintenance only. With 25% of City’s sidewalks in need of repair, Commissioner Scott estimated that it would cost approximately $80 million for the City to make all the necessary repairs. What this means, of course, is that twenty-five percent (25%) of all city sidewalks, being in need of repairs, are unsafe.

With one-fourth (1/4) of the City’s sidewalks in need of repair, it is not surprising that there have been significant injuries reported. In one case, a bicyclist was killed while riding his bike near Peachtree Street and Peachtree Battle Avenue within the City limits. A utility wire had been draped across the sidewalk (allegedly for over a month) and the bicyclist came into contact with it such that he was thrown from his bike, landed on his head and was killed. In another tragic occurrence, a small child lost his leg when a loose utility wire which also partially obstructed a city sidewalk got caught up by a passing motorist’s vehicle and severed the boy’s leg as he was standing next to a utility pole, again on a city sidewalk. While these occurrences are tragic, it is clear that there are many more unreported injuries being sustained by pedestrians using Atlanta’s sidewalks. The question is, what can be done about this problem?

In future blogs, we will address ongoing efforts to deal with these chronic problems. What is clear, however, is that sidewalk maintenance in Atlanta is a significant problem which needs to be addressed by the City, sooner rather than later.

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

Posted In: Brain Injury , Premises Liability , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

It seems that almost every day there is a headline in the local paper or on the TV news concerning horrible injuries suffered by a person attacked by a dog. This firm has successfully handled a large number of liability cases in which our clients were viciously attacked and injured by dogs.

Georgia law provides two ways that an animal owner or handler may be found liable for injuries inflicted by the animal. The first requires that the victim prove: (1) that the animal is dangerous or vicious; (2) that the owner or handler had knowledge of the dog’s viciousness or tendency to attack humans; and, (3) that the owner or handler either carelessly managed the animal or allowed it to go at liberty. The second basis upon which an owner or handler may be found liable for injuries inflicted by an animal requires that the victim prove that the animal; (1) was not at heel or on a leash as required by a local ordinance; and, (2) that the owner or handler either carelessly managed the animal or allowed it to go at liberty. The second ground does not require knowledge of dangerousness or viciousness of the animal. To successfully prove liability under the Georgia statute, the claim can be based on either a violation of a leash law or the owner’s or handler’s knowledge that the dog had the temperament or propensity to bite people. The breed of the dog, even if routinely known to be vicious, cannot be considered in determining liability under the Georgia statute.

Owners and handlers of dogs who have attacked persons typically attempt to raise the defense of assumption of risk to avoid liability for the injuries. They will argue that the victim knew of the dog’s vicious tendencies and approached the dog despite this knowledge, or somehow provoked the attack. This firm has successfully rebutted this defense in numerous cases.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability

Bookmark: