Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

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

We have read in the Atlanta newspapers this week about the tragic death of three people who died in a house fire in Palmetto, Georgia, which according to news reports was started by “an oxygen generating device that malfunctioned.” Although the news articles do not provide sufficient information to determine how this was concluded, the spokesperson quoted was from the State Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner’s Office. It appears, therefore, that the tragic fire which resulted in the three wrongful deaths was caused by a malfunctioning product, which shorted out somehow and caused the blaze resulting in these three tragic deaths.

Our firm in the past has handled a similar wrongful death case where a young boy died in a house fire also caused by a malfunctioning product. In that case, the product was also an oxygen generating device that had malfunctioned due to a short in it. The device caught fire and the young boy could not escape his room before being killed. In that particular case, the young boy also suffered from disabilities which made it difficult for him to escape the fire once it started. (As we read the article currently being circulated in the Atlanta area, at least one, if not more, of the three people killed in the fire which occurred in Palmetto, Georgia were also apparently disabled.)

These cases are very difficult to prove because many times the fire destroys the evidence. It appears that the Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner’s Office did a good investigation of this case because they may have preserved the malfunctioning unit. In the referenced case we handled, the malfunctioning unit was not fully preserved but enough parts of it were such that they could be examined by experts. In that case, it turned out that the product was known to malfunction by the manufacturer and had actually been recalled some several months before the incident due to its dangerous propensities.

Continue reading "Malfunctioning Products And Wrongful Deaths" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether on a pontoon boat, bass boat, ski boat or jet ski, recreational boating is a popular activity enjoyed by millions of Georgians. However, according to the United States Coast Guard, boat accidents and boating related injuries are on the rise in lakes, rivers, and coastal waterways with over 5,000 accidents occurring each year, nationwide. The U. S. Coast Guard keeps and publishes statistics on the various causes of boating accidents. Tracking data from 2006 - 2007, the Coast Guard reported in the 2007 Recreational Boating Safety Statistics that operator inattention, careless/reckless operation, passenger/skier behavior, excessive speed, and alcohol use rank as the top five primary contributing factors in accidents. Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 21% of the deaths.

A boat operator and the boats owner must exercise the highest degree of care to prevent injuries to passengers, swimmers and others in the nearby water and those in any boats around them. In addition to the Atlantic Ocean, Georgia has numerous recreational bodies of water. In addition to the Chattahoochee and many other Georgia rivers, there are numerous lakes where boaters congregate: Lake Lanier, Lake Sinclair, Lake Oconee, West Point Lake and others. Our main office is located in Atlanta which is not far from any of these lakes. As a result, we have seen more than our share of boating accidents and boat related deaths. If you or a loved one have been injured in a boating accident, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

Brake system care of golf carts is very important. Golf carts can be just as lethal as automobiles if not operated and maintained properly. When used carelessly, a golf cart can kill or severely injure the driver and passengers, innocent bystanders, or it can cause significant property damage. There are a number of things that can be wrong with golf cart brakes to create these types of situations.

Most all golf carts employ cable activated rear wheel brakes only. In recent years, hydraulic brakes and 4-wheel cable activated brake systems are becoming more common, as golf carts take on more diverse applications off the golf course; however, these systems are less common. Cable activated brake systems must be properly inspected and maintained on golf carts. Negligent maintenance can result in total and unexpected brake failure. Cable activated systems have three primary drawbacks. 1) The multi-stranded cables can start to break and unravel, sometimes inside the housing so that it is hard to see damage in progress; 2) The cables themselves are often located immediately under the battery compartment in electric vehicles, thus they are subject to the problems of improper battery maintenance. Acid-dripping batteries can contaminate and start to corrode the cable strands. Coupled with the natural water spray and corrosive golf course fertilizers, the cables really take a beating and may be subject to sudden and unexpected failure; and 3) The cables hang below the chassis and they are vulnerable to snagging stumps, rocks, and any other protruding obstacles they encounter.

A proper and systematic inspection of a golf cart will reveal most of these problems before there is a catastrophic event. If the cables are rusted, kinked, have broken housings, or just look suspicious in any way, shape or form, they should be replaced immediately. Failure to properly inspect and maintain a golf cart may subject the owner to liability for injuries in the event of a golf cart crash.

Continue reading "Golf Cart Accidents Can Be Caused By Failure To Maintain Brake Systems" »

Golf cart accidents are caused by any number of factors, including, the negligent or reckless operation of the cart and negligent failure to inspect and maintain the cart, especially the brake system. The number of reported golf cart accidents is continuing on the rise, which raises the public concern about golf cart safety. With the advent to faster golf carts and the practice of using golf carts in “off course” locations such as in airports, on school campuses or even city streets, more accidents are prone to happen. One of the more common golf cart accidents involves passenger ejection. This usually happens when the driver makes a hard left turn causing the passenger to be ejected from the right hand side of the cart. Golf cart seatbelts are not mandatory and therefor they are rarely present
.
Roll-overs are another typical accident associated with golf cart usage. These tend to happen on slick and/or hilly terrain, especially if your cart has a sub-par braking system. For instance, if your cart has only a front or rear wheel braking system and you attempt to slam on your brakes when driving full speed down a steep grade, your brakes may not be able to slow your acceleration, which in turn would cause you to fishtail out of control with the possibility of rolling over if you make any sharp turns. If your cart has only rear-wheel brakes and one of the rear wheels comes off the ground or fails to make good contact with the ground, you have very limited, if any braking ability.

Continue reading "Golf Cart Accidents Happen More Often Than You Might Think" »

A woman was reportedly seriously injured in Gainesville, Georgia on Friday evening when the brakes on a golf cart failed while going down a hill at a private political fund-raising event. WSBTV.com reported that the golf cart was shuttling people to a home in the Harbour Point subdivision when it’s brakes failed and the cart overturned.

Although no details about the failure have been reported, a thorough inspection of the golf cart is in order to determine why the accident occurred. Had the cart been properly maintained? Was there a defective part involved or was there a design defect?

Having litigated numerous serious injury and wrongful death cases over the years, the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP know that in any case where there has been a mechanical failure, it is absolutely crucial that the evidence be preserved and that the evidence be inspected as soon as possible by an engineer or any other expert qualified to document and evaluate such a failure.

Continue reading "Brake Failure Blamed For Georgia Golf Cart Crash" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motorcycle accident lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many motorcycle riders over the years who have been seriously injured in collisions involving automobiles. A few months ago we settled a case where our client sustained very serious injuries to his leg and foot when his motorcycle was hit broadside in an intersection by a doctor who ran a red light in her SUV. Although the motorcycle was not demolished, the injuries were devastating. As a result of the injuries he sustained, doctors had to amputate several toes and part of his foot. In this case and most others, the motorcycle rider was obeying the law and did nothing to cause or contribute to the collision.

Motorcycles are by their very nature far less crash worthy than closed vehicles and crashes frequently result in catastrophic injuries or death. They are also less visible to other vehicles and pedestrians and less stable than 4-wheel vehicles. Motorcyclists and their passengers are more vulnerable to the hazards of weather and road conditions than drivers in closed vehicles. According to the DOT, 5,154 people died in motorcycle crashes in 2007 and motorcycles are 35 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in crashes per vehicle mile driven in 2006, and 8 times more likely to be injured according to the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Because of the seriousness of the injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents and because many of the motorist who cause these accident are under-insured, Georgia lawyers need to be creative when representing riders. It is imperative that the victim’s attorney examine all potential avenues of recovery so that the client can be fully compensated. Other areas to review include failure of the motorcycle’s mechanical systems, failure of other motorcyclists to observe the motorcyclist, failure maintain the roadway and debris on the roadway from trucks, including tire tread separation.

If you or a loved one have been injured in an automobile accident, truck accident or motorcycle accident, consult the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP. Our firm has been representing personal injury victims for over 45 years.

Continue reading "Motorcycle Accident Result in Serious Injuries" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a case involving serious injuries which threaten to impair or impede altogether one’s ability to be gainfully employed, a Functional Capacity Evaluation can be critical in helping to establish the extent of the disability. Functional Capacity Evaluations are performed according to objective criteria which have been proven to be reliable in determining the extent of job related restrictions and limitations. If a client submits to a Functional Capacity Evaluation and is proven by such objective criteria to have limited abilities, such evidence can be critical in helping to convince a jury of the legitimacy of the claim. This can be extremely important in cases where someone complains of neck or back pain, for example. It is often difficult for a jury to understand the degree to which someone is suffering from neck or back pain. Such claims can be embellished or magnified, but a Functional Capacity Evaluation performed by a competent practitioner can weed out claims of embellishment and malingering because the test as designed can detect such claims as opposed to legitimate claims.

In a case where someone has a legitimate back or neck injury and they are truly restricted in their activities, a Functional Capacity Evaluation can help to establish the extent of the restrictions and limitations and can help prove the degree to which the pain caused by the neck or back injury is limiting the victim’s ability to engage in gainful activity. If a client cannot work, for example, and is reduced to sedentary activities, this can be demonstrated on a Functional Capacity Evaluation.

We recommend to our seriously injured clients in many contexts that they voluntarily submit to a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Because such tests are based on objective criteria, when a client is truly seriously injured a Functional Capacity Evaluation will confirm or corroborate claims of serious bodily injury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bus accidents on Georgia roads and highways many times result in serious injury and sometimes death for passengers. Many people do not realize that under Georgia law, common carriers such as bus companies and airlines owe their passengers the duty to exercise extraordinary care in the operation of the bus or airplane which is a higher legal duty than is normally owed. Specifically, the Official Code of Georgia Annotated §46-9-1 provides as follows:
“Carriers as such are bound to exercise ordinary diligence. Common carriers as such are bound to use extraordinary diligence, and in cases of loss the presumption of law is against them, and no excuse avails them unless the loss was occasioned by the act of God or the public enemies of the state.”
If you or a loved one have been seriously injured in a bus accident, as a passenger on a bus or any other common carrier, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP to discuss your rights. We have been representing clients in personal injury and wrongful death cases for over 45 years.