November 3, 2009

Georgia injury lawyers win appeal for motorist hurt in high-speed police chase

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently determined that DeKalb County could be held liable for injuries that a motorist sustained during a high-speed police chase, since there were factual issues as to whether the pursuing officer recklessly disregarded policies of the DeKalb County Police Department.

In Rahmaan v. DeKalb, Rahmaan, the plaintiff, stated that she was stopped at a red light at a four-way intersection around 10:00pm in the summer of 2005. When the light turned green, she heard loud sirens and stayed where she was. She then saw a Cadillac moving at a high rate of speed with a police car behind it. Rahmaan claims the police car intentionally rammed the back side of the fleeing Cadillac which is known as a PIT maneuver. This caused the Cadillac to fishtail into her vehicle. Rahmaan says she heard the officer get out of his car and say “we got him.” She also claims that people were walking on the sidewalk and that children were playing nearby when the wreck occurred. The officer testified that he did not perform a PIT maneuver, but rather, he was trying to block the intersection so innocent motorists could not enter. At that point, the officer claims the suspect’s car bounced off the police cruiser and into Rahmaan’s vehicle.

Under Georgia law, a police officer’s pursuit of a fleeing suspect cannot be the proximate cause of any injuries unless the officer acted with reckless disregard for proper law enforcement procedures in the officer’s decision to initiate or continue the pursuit. The trial court granted summary judgment for DeKalb, since it believed there was no evidence that the officer acted in reckless disregard. Yet, DeKalb County has a policy that forbids physical contact between vehicles except as required at roadblocks, and that roadblocks cannot be used when innocent persons would be endangered. Under Rahmaan’s version, the officer intentionally struck the fleeing suspect’s vehicle under circumstances not allowed by the county. Thus, the court reversed summary judgment and allowed her suit for injuries to go forward.

Our personal injury attorneys have successfully represented several clients who have been injured by reckless police officers. It is an unfortunate reality that many innocent lives are taken every year by high speed chases in which officers simply disregard proper police procedure. When an injury or death does occur in a police chase, the person or family that was harmed may be entitled to significant monetary damages for injuries. However, it is important to be conscious of the fact that an ante-litem notice may need to be filed very soon after an accident involving a police chase occurs. If an injured party fails to promptly file such a notice, he or she may waive any right to sue for monetary damages.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Bookmark and Share

October 22, 2009

Savannah lawyer wins fight to extend rights of insurance customers pursuing bad faith settlement claims

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Georgia made it easier for insurance customers to sue their insurance companies when the company has acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations. The Court ruled that an insurer that offers the full amount of its policy in a settlement involving multiple insurers is not automatically immunized from a bad faith claim, because an insurer must still act reasonably in regards to any conditions it attaches to the offer.

A bad faith settlement claim essentially alleges that an insurance company has not fulfilled its duties to its customer, because it wrongfully exposed the customer to a verdict at trial which goes beyond policy coverage instead of settling the case before trial.

In the case before the Court, the plaintiff, Fortner, was injured by the defendant in an auto wreck. The defendant had two insurers: the first, Grange Mutual Casualty, with a policy of $50,000 and the second with a policy of $1,000,000. Fortner offered to settle the case with Grange for $50,000 if the second insurer paid $750,000. Grange responded by offering $50,000 if Fortner would sign a full release with indemnification language and dismiss his claim against the defendant with prejudice. No settlement occurred and Fortner won $7,000,000 at trial. After trial, the defendant assigned Fortner any cause of action he may have against Grange for bad faith in failing to settle.

Fortner sued Grange for bad faith but lost in a jury trial. The instructions the jury received basically stated that an insurer only needs to offer the maximum amount of its policy limits to fulfill its duty to its customer. Fortner’s attorney, Robert B. Turner of the Savannah firm Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, argued the instructions were erroneous, since they didn’t say that Grange had to act reasonably. The Supreme Court agreed. Georgia law requires that an insurance company act reasonably. When a plaintiff makes an offer with a condition beyond the control of an insurer, an insurer can avoid bad faith liability by offering the portion of the demand over which it has control. Grange would have escaped liability if it had responded to Fortner’s offer by offering its policy limits. Instead, Grange put conditions on its offer by demanding that Fortner sign a full release of his claims with indemnification language and dismiss his suit against the defendant. Accepting such an offer would have prevented the $7,000,000 verdict against the defendant. The Court ruled that the settlement conditions were within Grange’s control, and as a result, the jury should be able to decide if the settlement conditions were reasonable.

Our personal injury attorneys have successfully represented clients that were the victims of an insurance company’s bad faith refusal to settle a claim. In our experience, bad faith practices by insurance companies are unfortunately common, and customers must be ever vigilant to ensure that they are not being taken advantage of. While this case highlights and corrects some of the abuses which occurred during settlement negotiations, it is important to understand that insurance customers may also have bad faith claims against their insurance companies for other unfair practices such as refusing to pay benefits that are owed or causing payments to be unreasonably delayed.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Bookmark and Share

September 24, 2009

Savannah lawyers obtain $1.4 million verdict in Statesboro truck accident case

David Brasington suffered numerous broken bones and a lacerated liver when a tractor trailer pulled in front of his van last year. A Statesboro jury recently awarded him nearly $1.4 million for the incident after he refused to settle the case for $350,000.

The wreck occurred while Brasington was driving a commercial van towards an intersection in Douglas on October 17. Brasington’s attorneys, I. Gregory Hodges and William J. Hunter of Oliver Maner, argued that a Horizon Tank Lines truck suddenly pulled onto the roadway causing the crash. The defense argued that Brasington had moved over into a right-hand turn lane after the tractor trailer began to enter the roadway. A truck driver who witnessed the crash agreed that Brasington was in the right-hand turn lane. However, a police investigation concluded that Brasington was not in the turn lane.

The injuries Brasington sustained were significant and included a fractured femur, broken pelvis, broken ribs, fractured elbow and a lacerated liver. Moreover, he was out of work for more than half a year and may require additional surgeries. The jury also witnessed him having difficulty walking.

The trial took three days and deliberations lasted two hours. In total, the jury awarded Brasington $1,733,184 which included $1.16 million for pain and suffering. However, the jury also found that Brasington was 20% at fault for the crash thereby reducing his award to $1,386,548. Horizon’s attorney said that the case will not be appealed.

Our personal injury lawyers have also successfully handled serious truck accident cases. In most tractor trailer cases, it is important for an attorney to move quickly to preserve evidence that may otherwise be lost or destroyed by the trucking company. One of the ways evidence can be preserved is by sending the trucking company a detailed spoliation letter demanding that it maintain evidence related to a crash. This will help ensure that investigators and industry experts will be able to dissect and utilize critical pieces of evidence including the truck driver’s qualification file, maintenance records, crash data from onboard computers and numerous other pieces of evidence vital to winning tractor trailer cases.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Bookmark and Share

September 4, 2009

RICO lawsuit alleges that Toyota concealed evidence in products liability cases involving rollovers

A federal racketeering suit has been filed against Toyota for concealing and destroying evidence in hundreds of rollover cases in what has been called a “ruthless conspiracy.” Perhaps most shocking is that the person bringing suit is the former managing counsel for Toyota Motor Sales.

CBS News has the story.

As an attorney for Toyota, Dimitrios Biller defended rollover lawsuits from 2003 to 2007 which involved instability and weak roofs in Toyota’s SUVs and pickups. Biller claims he consistently complained to supervisors about Toyota’s legal misconduct in those cases, and that he was ultimately pushed out the door for voicing his objections.

Biller filed suit in July in federal court in Los Angeles. In the suit, he claims that the motor company withheld evidence of its vehicles’ structural shortcomings. Specifically, he states that the company did not produce emails and electronic information to plaintiffs as is required by law. The lawsuit alleges that in one case a court ordered Toyota to disclose electronic data but that Toyota defied the order. Biller claims he attempted to save the information which included design and test data; however, Toyota destroyed the documents. The destroyed information should have been sent to plaintiffs in over 300 rollover cases.

The suit further alleges that Toyota withheld testing records of its vehicles’ roofs. For instance, Biller claims Toyota failed to produce documents which showed that its internal standard for roof strength was more durable than is required by federal regulations.

Toyota counters that the allegations are “inaccurate and misleading.” It further argues that Biller has violated his ethical obligations to Toyota by violating the attorney-client privilege. A hearing has been set for September 14 to determine if the complaint should be sealed due to privileged and confidential information.

The charges in Biller’s suit are echoed by many product liability lawyers who have dealt with Toyota in the past. If the charges prove to be true, it is possible that hundreds of seriously injured or killed plaintiffs were denied justice.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Bookmark and Share

July 6, 2009

Truck driver cited for failure to yield in serious accident with ice cream truck in Atlanta

On Thursday morning, an 18-wheeler struck an ice cream truck on Camp Creek Parkway which resulted in serious injuries. The driver of the 18-wheeler, Patrick Starpone, has been charged with failure to yield.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Police say the 18-wheeler was traveling eastbound when it attempted to make a left turn at a green light. However, the light did not have a left-turn arrow. An ice cream truck traveling westbound then collided with the 18-wheeler.

The driver of the ice cream truck, Stephen Linsey, sustained serious injuries and was life-flighted to Atlanta Medical Center. Linsey was reported to be in serious condition.

A Fulton County public works vehicle with four passengers was also involved the crash, but no other serious injuries were reported.

Our firm has helped people injured in truck accidents like this one. There are special circumstances about tractor trailer accidents that set them apart from a typical auto "fender bender" or even a more serious auto-only accident. A familiarity with trucking regulations, common operating procedures and manuals, as well as the preservation of evidence, are all necessary to help establish liability, even when the driver is clearly at fault.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Bookmark and Share

April 5, 2009

Georgia court holds that personal injury claims can be brought against police officers

The Georgia Supreme Court recently had to determine if the state is immune from liability when a police officer negligently strikes a vehicle while performing official duties. A divided Court ruled that the state was not immune to such a suit.

In Georgia Dept. of Public Safety v. Davis, the plaintiff, Davis, was injured by a police vehicle while driving her mail carrier pick-up truck. The state trooper was traveling behind Davis’ truck while running radar on vehicles approaching from the other lane. It is a technique known as blocking. Davis stopped in order to make a left turn; however, the trooper was not able to stop in time and collided with Davis’ truck. Davis was injured as a result of the accident, and she brought a suit for damages against the Department of Public Safety. The Department moved to dismiss the suit arguing that the state legislature did not intend to waive sovereign immunity for this type of incident. The trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed, and the case was then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The Department leaned on a statute which reads: “The state shall have no liability for losses resulting from. . . the failure to provide, or the method of providing, law enforcement, police, or fire protection. . .” The Court adopted a test from Texas and West Virginia which asks if the losses resulted from the making or implementation of a policy decision. Thus, the state is immune if the injury is caused during the implementation of a policy that is defective. However, the state is not immune where its employee implements a non-defective policy in a negligent manner.

The Court reasoned that it is the policy of the Department of Public Safety to apprehend speeders. However, it is not policy for an officer to negligently strike a vehicle while apprehending speeders. Furthermore, a review board found that the trooper did not operate his car in a manner consistent with policy and training. Since the trooper’s negligence was not a part of any policy, the state can be held liable for injuries caused by the negligence.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

Bookmark and Share

November 20, 2008

Domino's Pizza driver indicted for vehicular homicide in Macon, Georgia

A delivery driver for Domino's Pizza was recently charged with vehicular homicide for causing the death of a 21 year old woman on May 17 of this year in a traffic accident in Macon Georgia. The driver was allegedly under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana at the time of the accident.

The Macon Georgia Telegraph has the story.

Vehicular homicide can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the underlying reason for the accident. Usually, any DUI-type offense that leads to a death will be charged as a felony. Only people who have committed a very minor traffic offense that results in an accidental death receive misdemeanor treatment.

Our firm has represented injured drivers and their families in cases like this one involving drunk drivers. Now that the indictment has been returned, it is almost certain that both the driver and Domino's Pizza will be liable for the accident.

Bookmark and Share