Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Many clients choose their personal injury attorneys by watching the television or looking at billboards. Unfortunately, this does not always result in a client choosing the right attorney for his or her case. The best way to choose an attorney for a personal injury case is to make sure that the attorney selected is competent, professional and experienced. It is also important that the client determine that the lawyer being chosen has the ability to present the case to a jury if the case cannot be resolved by settlement and compromise.

Personal injury lawyers who most successfully represent their clients are those who are capable of presenting a case to a jury in an effective and professional manner. These lawyers are called Trial Lawyers. Personal injury lawyers who are Trial Lawyers are those who are most likely to get the best settlement results for their client in lieu of a trial. This is because insurance companies know that if they do not offer these lawyers fair and reasonable settlement offers that the lawyer will then present the case to a jury and get even more money. This is why they have to pay the value of the claim rather than trying to settle it cheap with a lawyer who does not know how to present the case to a jury. Accordingly, any client in a personal injury case should make sure that their attorney is capable of presenting their claims to a jury in a professional and competent manner and that they have experience trying cases.

Trial Lawyers always do a better job than those who do not know how to present a case to a jury or who have little or no experience doing so. Accordingly, clients would be well advised to ask how many jury trial their attorney has participated in as lead counsel so that they are comfortable with the fact that their attorney is capable of effectively representing their interests. Again, while the vast majority of all cases do settle, settlement amounts are influenced by a lawyer’s ability to effectively advocate claims. The more experienced the Trial Lawyer, typically, the better the settlement results in a personal injury case.

As we have written before, it is becoming increasingly necessary that plaintiff’s counsel be prepared to attack the veracity and credibility of so-called “independent” experts in personal injury cases. Insurance companies and defense law firms routinely retain medical “experts” to testify that plaintiffs are not injured at all or have only suffered minor injuries. They do this by examining diagnostic tests and/or by offering testimony that the test results do not substantiate a traumatic injury. Such testimony can be extremely misleading because oftentimes a clinical diagnosis made by a treating physician is much more reliable than a so-called independent review by someone who has never seen the plaintiff much less examined them. Nonetheless, such testimony is dangerous and can often be effective if the witness offering the testimony has a good medical pedigree, as they often do, and presents a good appearance before the jury. This makes the cynical use of so-called experts extremely dangerous because by paying a fee for the so-called “independent” opinion, the jury can be mislead and an innocent victim of a negligent act can be victimized again and denied the right to fair and reasonable compensation for their injuries.

“Independent” experts oftentimes testify in back injury cases as an example of this problem. They testify that an examination of radiological films proves to them that the “back injured” claimant was not injured at all. Many experts will testify that herniated discs in a back cannot be caused by trauma or that trauma did not cause the injury complained of, etc. Such testimony is tantamount to junk science and is completely unreliable but the problem is that many jurors do not recognize this. Jurors receive sworn testimony and based on their lack of medical training actually oftentimes believe that the so-called “independent expert” is, in fact, independent when nothing could further from the truth. Thus, to be effective in representing a personal injury claimant with a bad back or neck case, the best way to go about doing so is to attack the so-called independence of the expert. Many of these witnesses receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation each year from the insurance industry because they know where there bread is buttered and they know what is expected of them, which is to testify that the claimant is not injured and/or that they are malingering. This cynical approach to dispensing justice in a personal injury context is disheartening, frustrating and at times exasperating but, nonetheless, it is part and parcel of the landscape in our society. All one can do is fight against it and hope that fair and impartial jurors will see through such cynicism and will disregard the testimony of junk science experts who, for their own secondary gain, perniciously seek to influence their verdicts.

Increasingly we are seeing a trend that started many years ago but continues today. This involves the use of so-called “independent” experts to provide testimony in personal injury cases to the effect that the claimant has suffered no injury at all or, if any injury, only a minor one. Insurance companies employ so-called “independent” medical examiners to review radiology films, many times, so that a radiologist can testify that based upon an examination of the film, there is no evidence of trauma seen, thus the plaintiff could not have been injured. Of course, a radiologist cannot see damaged nerve endings or herniated discs on an x-ray film but this does not stop these so-called “independent” experts from providing junk science medical testimony for the jury’s consumption.

This trend is extremely troubling and has been decried by our courts in the past. In a well reasoned opinion written by the Georgia Court of Appeals over twelve (12) years ago, Justice Blackburn wrote “I write separately to point out a systematic problem in the general use of “independent” experts in the litigation process. This problem, while not limited thereto, is greatest where insurance companies use “independent” medical expert opinions to deny or limit payment of claims. The inherent weakness of this process is that the insurance company which controls the flow of business to “independent” medical services providers has a financial interest in the negative finding of such provider...”.

Insurance companies have a huge financial interest in making sure that cliams are not paid. One way to do this is to hire a so-called “independent” experts. It is disheartening to see a medical doctor testify for money paid that someone is not injured when the doctor, of course, has no way of knowing whether such is the case. Insurance companies typically get what they pay for which is a medical opinion that the claimant is either not injured at all or shows no objective evidence of injury based upon an examination of diagnostic films or other tests. Such testimony is extremely dangerous because it appeals to the cynicism of jurors who may believe that someone seeking money is simply out for secondary gain and is not legitimately injured. While there are fraud claims and while there are claims of embellishment and exaggeration, in many legitimate claims, nonetheless, these so-called “independent” experts are providing testimony that serves no other purpose but to deny justice to those who have been legitimately injured and are in need of adequate and just compensation for their injuries.

As we shall blog about it in future entries, the best way to attack this problem is to attack the hired gun witness by showing their financial interest in the proceedings and their inherent bias. By proving that the so-called “independent” expert is not independent at all, hopefully, a jury will understand that paid for testimony is not the most reliable evidence one could hope to rely upon in a personal injury case.

As we all know, trial lawyers are under assault by the business community. We are accused of being sleazy, money hungry ambulance chasers. I need not further discuss this nationwide propaganda campaign, but suffice it to say, our public image has been and continues to be at risk. Accordingly, it is imperative that as trial attorneys we conduct ourselves as ambassadors for justice when we appear in a courtroom.
The best way to get a favorable result in any case is to exude confidence and to practice the highest standards of professionalism. This is a fundamental rule of trial practice. The plaintiff’s lawyer cannot afford to be viewed with skepticism by the jury. The jury must trust the trial lawyer and his sincerity.
Accordingly, it is absolutely vital that counsel exude professionalism in everything he does. The manner of one’s dress, the extent of his preparation, the manner in which he conducts himself, his competence and his demeanor all reflect on our profession as well as the case before the jury. If we are to overcome the negative stereotypes being advanced by enemies of our civil justice system, during closing argument, it is recommended that counsel continue to practice the highest standards of professionalism in the manner in which he conducts himself. If the jury sees for itself the extent of counsel’s preparation, the extent of his confidence and the extent to which he embodies the quest for fairness and justice, this will not only enure to the benefit of the client, this will help our profession as a whole. In short, it is good business to be professional and if one is to be successful in a summation, professionalism must be exhibited in the presentation.
.

In the typical negligence case, it is not necessary that a jury be reminded that they have taken an oath to set aside any prejudice or biases they have and to render a verdict solely on the evidence and the law presented to them. However, there are cases of a more controversial nature where it might be necessary for counsel to consider reminding the jury of its oath. Examples would include medical malpractice cases and other controversial cases such as high speed police pursuits.
We all know about the propaganda campaign waged by the medical lobby and the Chamber of Commerce relative to caps on malpractice awards. As many observers have already noted, we do not need tort reform in Georgia because it has already occurred. The juries have been polluted by the massive propaganda campaign being waged against our clients. Thus, when a jury steps in the jury box, they may be fearful that if they return a verdict for a plaintiff, that they may be putting a doctor out of business or causing other doctors to leave this state. They may also be fearful that they will be participating in a “jackpot justice, lottery situation” where the plaintiff is made rich, as his attorney, while the poor doctor is sent home to pay the judgment himself. While we know that this propaganda is not true, nonetheless, juries have been so exposed to it that they may actually believe some of these falsehoods.
Accordingly, it might be necessary for counsel to advise the jury during summation that they promised during voir dire that they would follow the law and the evidence and that they should not disregard their oaths for fear of the collateral consequences of a just verdict.

In a hotly contested liability case, it is often easy for counsel to forget that the reason they are there is to achieve a favorable monetary verdict for their client. It is tempting sometimes to spend far too much time discussing liability thereby leaving counsel with little or no time to discuss damages. The reason we are in Court is to try to get a verdict to compensate our client for the damages they have sustained. Obviously, we have to discuss liability. However, we should never discuss liability exclusively and should always reserve a sufficient amount of our time in summation to devote to the subject of damages.
If the case is a close one and it is necessary that counsel discuss liability extensively, I would suggest that counsel discuss liability at least seventy percent (70%) of the time and reserve thirty percent (30%) of his time for damages. If counsel believes that liability is fairly strong, counsel might wish to divide his arguments between fifty-five and sixty-five percent (55-65%) liability and thirty-five to forty-five percent (35-45%) damages. If liability is strong, the counsel might wish to reverse this percentage and focus more on the damage equation to the case. Whatever the issues involved, however, counsel must be organized enough to allocate a sufficient percentage of his time to discuss the damage question such that the jury knows what it is counsel is asking for and why it is that the damage position of the plaintiff is both fair and just.
When discussing money with the jury, I would recommend that counsel always give the jury a range of suggested verdicts. If the jury is not given a range of suggested verdicts, then they have to come up with their own range and they may not pick a range that you will like. By giving a jury a range as to what would be appropriate, this gives the jury something to rationally discuss in the jury room.
For example, in a wrongful death case, if a young person is killed and liability is clear, and the individual had a substantial wage record, by using the Annuity Mortality Table, you can help guide the jury toward a fair range of lost wage reimbursement based on the Annuity Mortality Table and the types of wages the decedent was earning at the time of his or her death. Further, when discussing the non-economic portion of the case, counsel can talk about how much the individual’s life might be worth on an annual basis. Is life worth $25,000.00 per year? Is it $50,000.00 per year? Is it $100,000.00 per year? By showing the jury what the verdict range would be based upon its answer to that question, the jury can then begin to focus on $25,000.00 per year times a 50-year life expectancy or 50 - $100,000.00 per year times a 50-year life expectancy.
In short, I think a jury should be given a range to work with so that they have some basis for discussing damages when they enter the jury room. If you do not give them a suggested range for the type of money that you think would be a fair and just result, you many end up with a result that is less than favorable for your client.

As stated above, it is most important that counsel appear to be completely sincere in everything he says and does. The best way to do this is to speak from the heart and tell the jury exactly what you think. If the jury senses that counsel is speaking candidly in a forthright manner about the issues in the case, the jury is more likely to have confidence in what is being said.
If you speak from the heart, by definition, you are being yourself. If you speak from the heart, by definition, you are being sincere. If you speak from the heart, a jury will recognize that you are doing so. This can only help your client because the jury is more likely to side with the attorney who strikes them as being the most fair, the most believable and the most genuine. Make sure that this person is you by speaking from the heart.

Every good trial lawyer knows that a jury remembers best that which they both hear and see. Accordingly, demonstrative exhibits should always be used during closing argument. Sometimes demonstrative exhibits are necessary in order to emphasize a point about liability. Sometimes they are used to emphasize principles of law.
Effective demonstratives can also be used to discuss damages. A good closing argument might use demonstratives in all of these areas. In short, a well prepared demonstrative exhibit will assist counsel in making his point while at the same time assisting the jury in remembering it.
Of course, in addition to using demonstrative exhibits, actual trial exhibits should be shown to the jury just as a demonstrative exhibit would be shown. If a particular exhibit is important, the exhibit should be referred to by number and shown to the jury and its importance to the case should be discussed. An actual trial exhibit (blown up) can be used as a demonstrative exhibit in this fashion where counsel uses the exhibit to demonstrate to the jury why it is that the evidence supports his client’s contentions on any contested issue in the case.

In giving a closing argument, it is essential that counsel use the legal language of the case. The court will be instructing the jury on various principles of law that could be absolutely crucial in the jury’s determination of the facts. Thus, when discussing a case with the jury, counsel should use the language of the case. Counsel should use and explain terms such as “preponderance of the evidence,” “proximate cause,” “breach of duty,” “failure to exercise ordinary care,” “negligence,” and “damages.” If, for example, a central issue in the case is whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, that term should be used (exactly as will be charged by the Court) and explained as are other terms of art.
Many cases have unique questions of law that ultimately will control a jury verdict. It is absolutely essential that counsel use the language of the case from the beginning of the case through its end. Hopefully, the key language of the case was used in Opening Statement. Utilizing “the echo effect” during summation, counsel can use the same language of the case during summation in convincing the jury that their view of the evidence should be such that the issues are resolved favorably to the client.

As discussed above, one should not rely upon the inspiration of the moment to deliver a closing argument. A winning summation is usually the result of meticulous, painstaking preparation done well in advance of the actual delivery of the remarks. In order to insure that such preparation is not wasted, obviously, it is necessary that counsel utilize a structure in preparing his/her outline of the legal and factual issues counsel wishes to discuss with the jury.
The following elements should be present in your remarks: 1) an interesting introduction to the summation; 2) a discussion of what happened; 3) a discussion of the law and the burden of proof and why; 4) a discussion of damages; and 5) an appropriate peroration or conclusion.
In short, the closing argument should not be rambling but should be structured with a logical flow to it and with a content appropriate to the facts and legal issues involved in the case. While content many times is not as important as the actual delivery of the summation, nonetheless it is obviously important. Thus, for the content to be delivered in an effective manner, the communication style must be clear and concise and must be organized in such a manner that the jury can follow it as it is delivered. When counsel uses the “echo effect,” uses demonstrative exhibits, uses the language of the case and gives his remarks a structure, the essential elements of a winning summation are present.
1) An Interesting Introduction
With respect to the recommended structure, as indicated, counsel should initially deliver an interesting introduction to the summation. In short, the jury should hear an argument at the very beginning of the summation which captures its attention. It is recommended here that the beginning of summation mirror and/or have an “echo” effect of what hopefully was an interesting opening statement.
In a hypothetical case involving a high speed police chase, counsel for the plaintiff might give an opening statement that would read as follows:
This is a case about a police chase that should never have occurred and that resulted in the death of my client’s twenty-two (22) year old daughter, whom we contend was killed by a reckless disregard for proper police procedure by the officer involved. This case is also about the failure of the police officer and his employer, The ___________ Police Department, to acknowledge their role in this tragic loss. The evidence will show that they did have a role, a substantial role, in causing the death of this young lady and as you will hear, there will be no evidence that the victim of this tragic incident was in no way guilty of any wrongdoing herself. She was completely and totally innocent at the time of her death and lost her life partly because the police officer and his employer recklessly disregarded proper police procedures concerning the initiation and continuation of an objectively indefensible high speed pursuit.
If this kind of opening statement were given, hopefully the jury’s curiosity was piqued and their interest elevated at the very beginning of the case. Now, during summation, counsel should again describe the issue in such a manner as to get the jury’s interest and maintain it. Echo back to what was said by using the same terms, repeating the same themes. Stay on message at the beginning, but do so with impact.

2) A Discussion of What Happened and Why
After gaining the jury’s interest, counsel should then proceed to a discussion of what happened and why the defendant is liable. Here, counsel does not want to retry the entire case. Rather, counsel wants to discuss most important the facts that entitles his client to a verdict. It may be helpful to refer briefly to the pleadings and the Answer of the defendant. If you note a material fact that was denied in the Answer, this should be mentioned and then the jury should be reminded that the plaintiff has proven that the asserted fact is true.
While you should never go witness by witness in a recitation of what you proved, you should summarize the testimony and evidence offered by offering a cohesive unified theory of the case. I do not recommend that you use the term “theory of the case,” but I do recommend that you present your theory in a summarized manner tying together the most important facts and evidence supporting your claims for recovery

Continue reading "Closing Arguments: Give Your Remarks A Structure" »

In order to communicate with sincerity, there must be a body language and eye contact that flows naturally when discussing a case with the jury. The word discussion is important because one should never read to a jury or give them a speech. It is difficult to develop a personal rapport with the jury if one is speaking at someone as opposed to talking with them. While there should be an element of formality to the summation consistent with the seriousness of the cause of action, nonetheless, the summation should be conversational in tone, as if the lawyer is having a serious discussion with the jury trying to convince them of the justness of his cause.
I recommend that the trial attorney prepare a detailed outline of his comments, not a script. If you read a speech the jury will be turned off. If you discuss the case with the jury, they will listen more attentively. When you speak to someone close to you about an important matter, you do not give them a speech, you discuss the issue with them with great earnestness and sincerity. The same is true when you make a closing argument to a jury. You do not speak at them, you talk with them.

Another fundamental of a sound closing argument is being as natural as you can be. You should never try to imitate someone else’s style or manner. You can only be yourself. The jury is always watching you very closely. Are you sincere? Are you believable? Are you trustworthy? Everything you do must communicate to the jury that you believe to the core of your being in the justness of your client’s cause. If you subliminally communicate such a belief in everything that you do in the presence of the jury, you will have a much greater chance of winning your case. J. D. Lee, a famous trial lawyer from Knoxville, Tennessee, made this observation:
“We have all seen great minds that have been wasted by not putting their knowledge into action. It is true with the trial of a lawsuit. The power of the attorney is expressed in how the attorney conducts him or herself in the courtroom. He or she is the one that brings in the big exhibits, the pictures, the drawings, moves about the courtroom with confidence and clearly shows why he or she is entitled to a verdict. This same professional advocate must display trustworthiness and integrity. The attorney does this by dress, by posture, by demeanor to court and jury and at times just by tone of voice.”
Most experts in the field believe that the manner of the delivery of a closing argument is just as important, if not more important, than the content of the summation. If a jury believes that counsel is honest and forthright and that the attorney is entirely confident in the justness of his client’s cause, the jury is more likely to side with that lawyer.
Thus, it is imperative that one be sincere at all times and that one function within his or her own personality. Attempts at mimicking other attorneys are ill advised. It is impossible to communicate effectively with a jury if one is trying to be anyone other than himself.

It is a very effective form of communication to stay on message and repeat consistently a unified theme. In the opening statement, a theme of the case or theory of the case should have been developed.
The trial lawyer should harken back to his opening statement during summation and use some of the same language in discussing the issues. This so-called “echo effect” is very important in driving home a point. The Republicans are masters at staying on message and repeating their message constantly and consistently to their audience.
By repeating a central theme and using the same language in doing so, one is more likely to achieve the intended results of the “echo effect,” that is, implanting in the jury’s mind the message one wishes to communicate.

What follows are excerpts from an article one of our lawyers wrote about Closing Arguments. We have previously posted Trial Techniques articles about effective cross-examination. As this article is broken ito separate parts, we will post the various subsections and suggestions in separate posts over the next several weeks. We hope this will be helpful to you if you are a practicing atorney and ,if a potential client, will give you insight into what a Trial lawyer should do to effectively represent your interests:

The most gifted Trial lawyers among us are highly successful orators. I use the term gifted because such innate ability is not common among all Trial lawyers. Those who can make a jury cry and stir their emotions with natural ease and innate ability are the few among us with this gift of oratory. These are the “show horses” of our profession. For the rest of us, we have to learn to be work horses in order to be successful at giving a winning summation. If we follow sound fundamentals, just like a football team, we can still deliver a winning summation even if we are not particularly gifted. The key is good, old fashioned, hard work. If one prepares properly and uses sound fundamentals, there is no reason one cannot be successful. What follows therefore are practical suggestions on how to go about giving a sound closing argument that is likely to yield a successful result.
A. PREPARE, PREPARE, PREPARE
It is said that when Winston Churchill had to give a fifteen minute speech, he would engage in six to eight hours of preparation beforehand. When he delivered his fifteen minute address, he did so eloquently and, it appeared to those observing, effortlessly. The truth is that it was not effortless at all, but instead the result of painstaking effort in organizing thoughts and succinctly summarizing them, well in advance of the planned delivery. Churchill prepared very hard for his so called “effortless and brilliant speech,” and thus, even though he appeared to be speaking extemporaneously, what the audience was hearing was the result of extremely hard work and intense preparation.
It is no different for the successful trial attorney. If you want to give a good closing argument, you must be extremely prepared. While this is axiomatic for those of us who have done a good deal of trial work, the point cannot be overemphasized. One should not rely upon the inspiration of the moment. There may not be any.
We have all heard that summation begins the moment you take a client’s case. This is quite true. In my personal practice, when I set up my file in any given case, I set up a “Closing Argument” section at the very beginning of the case. As I work on the case through the discovery phase, I am constantly putting written ideas into my “Closing Argument” file. If I think of something in the middle of the night or during the week, during a deposition or otherwise, I memorialize my thoughts on paper and put my thoughts into the “Closing Argument” file. I do this throughout the pendency of the case, all the way up to formal preparation of a Closing Argument Outline. If the case is not settled, by the time I get into intense trial preparation, I usually have a fairly thick file of closing argument thoughts. Thus, when I sit down to prepare an outline for my closing argument, I usually have 30 to 50 “points” of pithy statements and observations that I have been making over the many months that I have been working on the case. This gives me a headstart in determining which points of argument are the most persuasive, which I should use at the beginning of my argument, and which I might wish to save for rebuttal.
In short, I am always preparing for my summation and never wait until the last minute to do so. You should do the same.

Anytime a serious injury case is settled for a particular amount of money, the insurance company for the at fault third party involved will insist on a Release of all claims, not only against their insured responsible for the damages but also for the insurance company issuing the check on their behalf. This is standard as part of any serious injury or personal injury case whereby monies are paid as consideration for a settlement. In all such cases, counsel should be conferred with because the provisions of a Release can be extremely important when it comes to third party claims, medical liens, subrogation and other similar matters.

In a typical Release, the party receiving the settlement funds has to agree to release the paying party and the insured from all other claims regardless of what happens after the date of the settlement. Again, this is a standard provision of any settlement. Once the case is settled, the claim is over no matter what happens thereafter. In exchange for the money, the party receiving the money must completely release the third party and their insurance carrier and if necessary file a dismissal of any lawsuit that has been filed. Usually Releases provide for indemnification agreements whereby the party receiving the money must indemnify or hold harmless, the parties paying the money from any liens filed by third parties such as hospitals, medical providers or other third parties who may have some interest in the matter. Again, all such provisions are standard in personal injury cases but in some cases, they become more important than in others particularly where there are alleged claims of subrogation which must be considered. We will address subrogation concerns in a separate blog. Suffice it to say, however, that Release agreements must be carefully reviewed with counsel to make sure that the client’s interests are adequately protected.

When someone is injured on-the-job under Georgia law they are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. These benefits will provide minimal payments for lost wages as well as reimbursement of any medical expenses arising out of the on-the-job injury. In exchange for these statutory benefits the employee may never sue the employer responsible for the on-the-job injury. In short, even if an employer is negligent and/or creates an unsafe situation for an employee, the employer cannot be sued, instead as a tradeoff for not being sued, the employer must provide workers’ compensation benefits which provides lost wage benefits and the reimbursement of medical expenses.

Even though employers in Georgia have immunity from lawsuits for negligence which results in injuries to employees, nonetheless, if a third party is involved in such negligence, under certain circumstances, that third party may be liable for the employee’s injuries.

A hypothetical might illustrate the point we make here. If an employee of a warehouse company is injured by a trucker who is backing his truck into the dock and inadvertently runs over the warehouse employee, even though the warehouse employee has been injured on-the-job, they have not only a workers’ compensation claim against their warehouse employer but they also have a third party liability claim against the trucking company employee that caused their injury. Thus, in some limited circumstances, depending upon the unique facts involved, an injured employee may have not only a workers’ compensation claim against their employer but also a claim against a third party. This can be important because workers’ compensation benefits are quite limited, particularly with respect to lost pay and there is no compensation under the workers’ compensation statutory scheme for pain and suffering at all. In cases where the injuries are very serious, there should be compensation for pain and suffering and thus a third party claim may be one avenue by which the injured employee can obtain some measure of justice for these damages.

In any serious on-the-job injury, the injured victim should consult with counsel to determine their rights to workers’ compensation benefits. They should also explore the possibility of whether a third party liability claim is present. If a third party is involved in the negligent act which results in the injury, there may be an additional avenue available for relief to the victim by way of liability insurance as opposed to the limited workers’ compensation benefits currently available under Georgia law.

Under Georgia law, employers are vicariously liable for the acts of the employees provided such acts are performed within the scope of their employment. If an employee is working on behalf of an employer and is acting within the scope of his or her duties, an employer will be liable if the employee negligently injuries a third party. The reasons for such liability are due to the fact that the injury arose out of and was caused by the performance of duties being performed on behalf of the employer. Under such circumstances, both the employer and employee are legally liable to the injured third party.
Disputes often arise in cases where there is some question whether the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment. Such questions may arise in the context of an employee traveling to and from work where they may be performing an errand for their employer, attending a special meeting or otherwise performing some function on behalf of their employer even though technically not “on the job.” Such cases are always factually unique and each case must be decided based on an analysis of the facts as it pertains to the seminal legal question, that being whether the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the complained of injury.

For any person injured in an accident or as a result of any misconduct or negligence of a third party, one must always analyze whether there is the possibility of a claim against the person’s employer. We have handled many cases in the past where initially it appeared that the claim could only be brought against the individual tortfeasor only to discover through investigations that the person who negligently caused the injury was, in fact, working on behalf of a third party at the time of the incident. As in any important legal case, investigation of the facts as close to the time of the injury is imperative if the rights of the victim are to be protected.

In a case where an innocent victim is victimized by the negligence of a third party, whether it be as a result of the negligent acts of a truck driver or due to medical malpractice committed by a doctor, a question often arises: Should a claimant in such a case consider mediation as a way of resolving their claims against the negligent defendant? Experience indicates that mediation is successful approximately eighty percent (80%) of the time so logic would dictate that all serious personal injury claimants should consider mediation as an alternative to litigation.

Over the years, we have been involved in hundreds of mediations here at our firm. Our experience bears out that approximately eighty percent (80%) of all cases submitted to mediation do settle. Thus, we do recommend that our clients seriously consider attending a mediation prior to proceeding to a jury trial. Jury trials are fraught with uncertainty and reasonable minds many times can differ over what would be a fair and just result in any given case. At mediation, the parties deciding the dispute are the parties themselves as opposed to twelve (12) lay persons who are strangers to the dispute. There are advantages for the parties to settle amongst themselves because not only does this save the time and expense of a jury trial, the parties themselves are usually much more familiar with the facts than would be twelve (12) lay persons sitting in a jury box. Thus, as a general proposition, we recommend that all of our clients consider mediation as a possible way to resolve a personal injury case against a negligent third party. As stated, it does not matter whether the case involves medical malpractice, products liability, wrongful death, a trucking accident, a car accident or any other serious injury tort case. As long as the parties are voluntarily willing to submit their claims to a mediation, there is always the possibility of a settlement, which if the terms of the settlement are fair and just, can be preferable to proceeding to trial. Of course, we continue to advocate that the best way to get the best result for any client is to be prepared to present the case to a jury so that all parties at the mediation will know that counsel is prepared to obtain a just result for his/her client unless the case is settled for a reasonable sum at mediation.

In a case where an injured party brings a claim against a person who caused them injury and that person’s employer, a jury question is often present as to whether the negligent employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time they inflicted the injury upon the innocent third party victim. As long as a disputed issue of material fact exists, only juries can determine whether an employee was acting within the scope of their employment and/or acting solely for personal reasons. Under Georgia law, while courts are free to decide cases where there is no disputed issue of material fact on this question, as long as there are facts from which a jury could determine that an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment on behalf of an employer, only a jury can decide whether the employer should be held legally liable for the damages inflicted by the negligent employee.

In a medical malpractice case, if the doctor involved is working on behalf his employer then in that event, the employer would be liable. If the doctor is coming home from an office function, and injures someone on his or her way home, the question arises as to whether this was a special office function the doctor was required to attend and/or whether there are any other disputed facts which would indicate that the doctor/employee was still acting within the scope of his employment and on behalf of his employer. Again, these cases are factually unique. The issues must be resolved by a jury except in cases where it is plan and palpable that the employee’s conduct was in no way connected to his or her employment.

Unless there is no dispute about the facts or unless it is clear that an employee’s conduct has nothing to do with their employment, Georgia juries will have to decide whether an employer will be liable for the tortious facts of an employee. Legal instructions to the jury will always provide that an employer should be held liable for acts committed by employees provided such employees were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the complained of injury.

In Georgia there is a bad law on the books that was passed by the Republican dominated Legislature as part of its so-called effort at “tort reform.” We refer here to the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68, the Georgia Offer Of Judgment statute. This statute provides that a party may make an offer of judgment to another party in a pending case in which the offering party agrees to settle the case for a specified sum. Thereafter, if the party to whom the offer is made fails to settle for the offer and later fails to obtain an award of at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the amount of the offer, then the party making the offer of judgment may petition the court for payment of its attorney’s fees from the date the offer was made until the less favorable award or loss.

A hypothetical might provide a good example of why this is such a bad law. Suppose a middle class person files a lawsuit against a rich corporate defendant with silk stocking lawyers paid by an insurance company our through other corporate monies. An offer of judgment is made by the wealthy defendant against the middle class person. If the middle class person does not obtain a verdict in excess of seventy-five percent (75%) of the amount of the offer, that middle class person may be on the hook under this new law for the payment of the attorney’s fees of the silk stocking lawyers - even if they win their case (but especially if they lose the case).

Many Washington, D.C., New York law firms and firms in Atlanta charge anywhere between six to eight hundred dollars an hour ($600. - $800.) for their “silk stocking services.” While such fees are outrageous from the standpoint of any middle class person, corporations routinely pay these fees because corporations have the funds to do so. Thus a middle class person who is trying to assert their legal rights in any litigation runs the risk of having all their assets seized by these silk stocking corporation lawyers if they do not prevail in civil litigation. Thus, the middle class person is being forced to settle the case rather than run the risk of presenting his or her case to a trial by jury.

Continue reading "Offers Of Judgment: An Assault On The Civil Justice System" »