Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Georgia injury lawyers know that dog bites can result in serious and disfiguring injuries and sometimes the wrongful death. Because of the population of Atlanta area, it is not uncommon to hear about these cases on a weekly basis. It is estimated that almost 5 million Americans each year are dog bite victims. About 800,000 of these are serious enough to seek medical treatment for their injuries. Sadly, about half the victims are children and most of them are between the ages of 5 and 9 years old.
According to the law, dog owners are responsible for their dog’s actions and homeowner’s insurance will pay for the damages. Owning a dog know to have dangerous propensities or failing to abide by leash laws will subject the owner to liability if the dog bites someone. It is estimated that dog bites account for roughly one-third of homeowners’ insurance claims. For that reason, many insurance companies that sell homeowner’s insurance coverage will now inquire about the types of pets the prospective insured may have living in the home and factor that into the underwriting process when determining a fair premium.
Georgia law provides two ways that an animal owner or handler may be found liable for injuries inflicted by the animal. The first requires that the victim prove: (1) that the animal is dangerous or vicious; (2) that the owner or handler had knowledge of the dog’s viciousness or tendency to attack humans; and, (3) that the owner or handler either carelessly managed the animal or allowed it to go at liberty. The second basis upon which an owner or handler may be found liable for injuries inflicted by an animal requires that the victim prove that the animal; (1) was not at heel or on a leash as required by a local ordinance; and, (2) that the owner or handler either carelessly managed the animal or allowed it to go at liberty. The second ground does not require knowledge of dangerousness or viciousness of the animal. To successfully prove liability under the Georgia statute, the claim can be based on either a violation of a leash law or the owner’s or handler’s knowledge that the dog had the temperament or propensity to bite people.

Continue reading

Acts of medical malpractice are often hidden by the secrecy afforded hospitals and health care providers by various state laws which make these matters confidential and immune from discovery by the public.

In an effort to reduce these sometimes deadly errors, the state of Indiana initiated a method of publicly tracking preventable medical errors. In just the fourth year of reporting, Indiana hospitals and surgery centers reported more than a 10 percent decrease in errors between 2008 and 2009.

Indiana’s Medical Error Reporting System requires hospitals, surgery centers, abortion clinics and birthing centers to report “never events.” These are medical errors that should never occur. The errors cover 28 serious events, from surgery performed on the wrong patient to an infant discharged to the wrong person to patient suicide.

On August 4, 2010, DePuy Orthopedics recalled its ASR XL Acetabular System (hip implant) and ASR Hip Resurfacing System. Recent data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales indicated a higher than expected revision rate at five years. Specifically, the data showed that the five-year revision rate for ASR XL Acetabular System was approximately 12% and for ASR Hip Resurfacing System was approximately 13%.

The revision rate was highest with ASR head sizes below 50mm in diameter and among female patients.

DePuy is a unit of Johnson & Johnson. ASR XL Acetabular System has been

Not a week goes by that we do not see a significant number of road debris items laying in the middle of Georgia highways. Whether it is an old mattress, furniture, tools, chain, truck tie-down straps or whatever, these items on the highway often result serious injury or death to innocent motorists who encounter and try to avoid them.

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.

Traffic fatalities in Georgia and across the United States have shown a significant decline between 2008 and 2009, according to a report released on Thursday by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Georgia’s number of traffic fatalities in the period fell by 14 percent for a total of 1,495 in 2009. Florida led the nation with 422 fewer traffic fatalities in 2009, followed by Texas (405 fewer), California (353), Pennsylvania (212) and Georgia (211 fewer).

Increased seatbelt use and campaigns against drunk driving are being credited with the drop.

All manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers of dangers associated with the use of their products. An example of this would be drug manufacturers who dispense and promote the sale of prescription medication with known side effects. Warnings of these side effects must be provided to consumers so that they can make informed choices before they use such products. However, many different products in the marketplace have risks attendant with their use and consequently it is incumbent upon the manufacturer to warn the public and consumers of the products of dangers specifically known to be associated with such use.
We recently blogged about a case where a house fire was caused by a defective oxygen generating device which resulted in the death of three people. If the manufacturer of this product was aware of dangers associated with its use and/or if there had been other fires caused by the product, it may very well be that the product should have been recalled by the manufacturer. This is an example of where a manufacturer who is responsible not only gives warnings to the public but also takes prophylactic steps to remove a dangerous product from the marketplace. In cases where there have not been a sufficient number of incidents to result in a recall of a product, nonetheless, if a manufacturer is aware of dangers associated with its use, warnings should be given to the users to notify them of foreseeable dangers connected with the use of the product.
Many court opinions have held that the failure to warn by a manufacturer of known dangers associated with the use of the product can make the product in and of itself defective. Lack of warnings provided to a consumer deprives the consumer of intelligent choices particularly where the dangers are known to the manufacturer. A failure to warn in this context can render the product defective because a dangerous product which distributed to the public should contain warnings about know dangers associated with its use. A failure to do so can be a basis of strict liability under the law.

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

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

Georgia has an “equitable apportionment” statute which essentially states that either parent of a deceased child, when divorced, separated or living apart, may file a lawsuit for the wrongful death of their child, notwithstanding the divorce or separation. In such a case, the parent that brings the wrongful death case does so in a fiduciary capacity proceeding not only on their on behalf but also on behalf of the divorced/separated spouse who obviously also has a legal interest in the death of their child.
Where divorced parents get along well even after the divorce, they may sue jointly. The difficulty comes where the parents do not get along and one proceeds before the other. Sometimes the other parent has to move to intervene in a lawsuit to protect their interests because they do not trust their spouse. Under Georgia law, even in such cases where neither spouse trusts the other, the fact is that the law provides that one spouse that proceeds in a divorce/separation situation for the wrongful death of a child, nonetheless, proceeds jointly on behalf of their divorces spouse.
In the event there is a recovery for the wrongful death of a child in the situation where the parents are divorced, the law provides for an “equitable apportionment” of any recovery between the divorced parents. A court will decide who gave the most child support, on whom did the child depend for support and issues of a similar nature in determining which parent equitably should receive the largest portion of the wrongful death award, if any. If a parent has abandoned their child, paid no child support, had nothing to do with the child, most courts would not award such a parent anything from the recovery although the court would be authorized to award whatever it deemed to be in the interest of justice based on the facts and circumstances. In most cases the courts would probably plan to divide the proceeds on a 50/50 basis unless there was clear evidence that one spouse had abandoned the child, was abusive to the child, did not pay child support or was not involved in the child’s life. In such circumstances, the spouse that did the most for the child and was the closest to the child would probably receive most, if not all of the award although, once again, the court would be required to equitably apportion the damages based on its own assessment of the equities involved.

Continue reading