Georgia Injury Law Blog

Published on: November 20, 2007

Stand Your Ground Laws Allowed In Georgia

November 20, 2007

ABC News recently reported on an incident in Pasadena, Texas last week and captured on a 911 tape where zealous gun owner, Joe Horn, noticed his neighbor’s home was being burglarized.Relying on the Texas “Stand Your Ground” law, the neighbor ran next door, shot and killed the two burglars despite pleas for patience from the 911 operator.

In 2006, the Georgia legislature with Senate Bill 396 enacted a “Stand Your Ground” law similar to the one in Texas. O.C.G.A. sections 16-3-2 and 51-11-1 provide that a person has the right to meet force with force, including deadly force, in defense of one’s self, one’s home or other property.These laws provide immunity from both prosecution and civil tort actions.Sixteen other states have enacted similar legislation, expanding the legal boundaries of self-defense that previously required a duty to retreat.

Published on: November 12, 2007

Sleeping Truck Drivers Cause Accidents

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

November 11, 2007

Last week the Center for Disease Control (CDC) celebrated Drowsy Driver Prevention Week.Interestingly, in a poll conducted as part of their education campaign, 47 percent of commercial truck drivers admitted to having fallen asleep while driving a truck during some point in their career.

In a study conducted of the sleep patterns of long haul truck drivers and printed in the New England Journal of Medicine, drivers obtained between 4 and 5 hours of verifiable sleep during the course of driving ten-hour days in a five-day period.Most people need between 7 and 9 hours of sleep per night.Thus, fatigue and sleep deprivation constitute significant safety issues for long haul truck drivers.

Published on: October 29, 2007

Cell Phone Use Causes Auto Accident

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

October 29, 2007

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment to the defendant in an interesting case involving the use of a cell phone by an employee enroute to work.In Hunter vs. Modern Continental Construction Company, the employee shift supervisor was enroute to work when he was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff.Plaintiff sought to bring her lawsuit against not only the driver/supervisor, but his employer as well.

The employer moved for summary judgment (a dismissal of the case before it gets to trial) on the basis of established case law that driving to and from work is an act for the employee’s own purposes and not in pursuit of the employer’s business.

Published on: October 16, 2007

Punitive Damages

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

October 16, 2007

When a drunk driver causes an accident and someone is injured, the drunk driver may be liable for more than just the plaintiff’s injuries and property damage. Georgia juries are allowed to “fine” the defendant by awarding punitive damages. Punitive damages not only punish the defendant for his or her egregious conduct, but they are also intended to discourage this type of behavior in the future.

Last year in Georgia over four hundred automobile accident fatalites were the result of drunk drivers. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for over twenty-seven percent of all the accident fatalities. Moreover, last year drunk driving fatalities increased over seven percent from the year 2005. In Georgia, a driver is considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol if his blood alcohol content (BAC) registers .08 or above.

Published on: October 8, 2007

Bicycle Safety

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

In Atlanta and other major cities, an innovative group known as "Critical Mass" has organized to promote riding bicycles among city streets used primarily by motor vehicles. Critical Mass riders seek to promote enthusiasm for bike riding in what has become a “car culture.” Critical Mass hosts monthly Friday rides.

The Atlanta Bicycle Campaign, another bicycle activist group, hosts an annual Share the Road event that promotes safe riding by cyclists on the Atlanta streets. The event hosts an annual ride and raises money to promotes cycling safety on Atlanta streets.

However, cycling in Atlanta is not a smooth ride. In 2001 Bicycling Magazine named Atlanta as the worst city for riding a bike. While Atlanta has the right weather and plenty of bike advocacy groups, the local roads have very few bike lanes. Plus urban sprawl and excessive traffic make riding in Atlanta less than hospitable.

Published on: October 4, 2007

Faulty Seatbelts and Air Bags

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

In Georgia there is a doctrine known as Res Ipsa Loquitur, which translated means “the thing speaks for itself.” Some things are so manifestly the result of someone’s negligence that a jury can infer negligence on the part of the defendant. In other words, the evidence proves the point. For example, a scalpel left in the stomach of a surgery patient infers the negligence of the doctor. Also, a barrel of flour falling out a second story window infers the shopkeeper’s negligence.When applied, this doctrine creates an inference of negligence that the defendant must affirmatively disprove.

To apply this doctrine in a negligence case, the plaintiff must usually show:

That harm would not have occurred without someone’s negligence;

Published on: October 2, 2007

Sovereign Immunity

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

This week the Georgia Court of Appeals threw out a 5.1 million dollar jury verdict against DeKalb County for the wrongful death of a twenty-one year old probationer when he fell off the back of a county garbage truck which he was assigned as part of his community service work. The reason the county prevailed as a matter of law is because of a doctrine known as “Sovereign Immunity” or as we used to call it in law school – “It’s Good to be the King.”

Sovereign immunity originated from English common law which ruled that since the King made the law, he could not be subject to the law. The practical reality that resulted from this was that the government cannot not be sued for negligence. This is not to say that the government was never negligent, but rather if you happened to be injured while struck by a passing fire truck, you could not sue the county that owned the fire truck.

Government lawyers often contend that the government provides services that no one else would risk doing – such as locking up prisoners, chasing criminals, putting out house fires, and stopping traffic. In exchange for these valuable civic duties, the government should not be subsequently liable if things go awry will carrying out these duties. Also, governments argue that they must protect limited government dollars that are collected from taxpayers.

Published on: September 19, 2007

Uninsured Motorist Coverage for Car Accidents

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

The state of Georgia requires all motor vehicle owners to secure minimum liability insurance coverage for their vehicles.This insurance provides for payment for damages in the event the other driver suffers a personal injury in the car accident.However, there is no requirement that motor vehicle owners secure uninsured motorist coverage to pay for their damages if the other driver is at fault and they have suffered a severe personal injury in the auto accident.See Jenkins & Miller Georgia Automobile Insurance Law (2007 ed.) 29:3.

Uninsured motorist coverage has aptly been called “insurance against lack of insurance”.See Jenkins & Miller Georgia Automobile Insurance Law (2007 ed.) 29:1.It is available and recoverable only when the fault causing the car accident is found to be that of the uninsured or underinsured vehicle’s driver.Id.It is an important form of insurance since it allows the injured person to recover their damages.

The purpose of UM coverage “is to place the injured insured in the same position as if the offending uninsured motorist were covered with general liability insurance.”Another way of explaining the purpose of UM coverage is that coverage is available to protect innocent injured drivers against irresponsible drivers who fail to secure coverage for auto accidents.The coverage is not available for the benefit of the irresponsible, but for those injured or caused to incur damages by the uninsured’s negligence.

Published on: September 19, 2007

What is Medical Payments Coverage and When Should I Use It When Injured in an Auto Accident?

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Commonly, insurance policies include an endorsement which provides the insurer “will pay reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical and funeral services because of bodily injury caused by accident and sustained by an ‘insured.’”Medical payments coverage for car accidents is optional under Georgia insurance policies and is available to the insured regardless of fault.These endorsements typically provide for recovery up to a certain amount for a certain amount of time, generally three years.Furthermore, the insurance carrier must pay benefits within sixty days of the demand by the insured who has suffered a personal injury in a car accident.

The question of who is covered under a medical payments endorsement for medical bills incurred due to a personal injury in a car accident is set out by statute.OCGA § 33-34-2(1) provides: “Coverage shall be available to the named insured, resident spouse, and any resident relative while occupying the covered motor vehicle, and to any other person legally occupying a covered motor vehicle.”

Individuals injured in automobile accidents should look to their health insurance carrier for payment of their medical bills first, as coverage is provided under contract with the health insurance carrier.The injured should then look to the medical payments carrier which will pay funds directly to the injured party and will reimburse the injured insured for any out of pocket expenses not paid by the injured insured’s health insurance carrier.It is important to remember that most automobile policies contain notice provisions which will also apply to medical payments coverage and in all cases, the injured insured should notify their own insurance carrier as soon as possible.

Published on: May 20, 2007

ERISA Health Insurance Issues in Auto Accident Injury Matters

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

In 2001, auto accident injury victims received what was thought to be good news from the U.S. Supreme Court in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 122 S.Ct. 708, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002). In Knudson, the Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. Her medical bills related to injuries sustained in the auto accident were paid by her ERISA health insurance plan. Upon settlement, the settlement proceeds were paid into a special needs trust. The Plaintiff’s ERISA plan attempted to obtain reimbursement directly from the Plaintiff for the medical bills the health insurance carrier paid for treatment related to the auto accident injuries. The Knudson Court ruled that the plan had no right to reimbursement since such payments would constitute enforcement of a legal remedy, something not allowed under ERISA.

However, through Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, 547 U.S. 1015, 126 S.Ct. 1869 (2006) and its progeny, the Supreme Court illuminated the fact that the Court will not interpret every plan as seeking a prohibited legal remedy. The Court will look to the plan language on a case by case basis to determine whether the plan creates an equitable remedy – specifically, whether a fund has been specifically identified by the plan language, and if so, to what part of the fund the plan will be entitled to recover reimbursement. The plan’s right to reimbursement will fail if the plan itself fails to create a lien by agreement, by “specifically identifyi[ng] a particular fund, distinct from [the plan beneficiaries’] general assets. . . and a particular share of that fund to which [the plan] was entitled.”