Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Toyota is being taken to task for delaying the recall of vehicles subject to sudden acceleration. Amid reports that Toyota is going to recall its highly successful hybrid, the Prius, for brake problems, there are serious questions being raised as whether the automaker and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration responded quickly enough to reports of sudden acceleration in some of its other models.

Insurer State Farm has revealed that it notified NHTSA in late 2007 that it was seeing an increase in sudden acceleration trends with other Toyota and Lexus automobiles. State Farm said it received numerous inquiries about alleged unwanted acceleration problems in Toyota and Lexus vehicles in recent years.

Toyota has undergone several investigations about such concerns starting in 2004, when complaints were lodged about sudden acceleration in the 2002 and 2003 Toyota Camry and Lexus ES models. NHTSA opened a file on Toyota in 2007 to look into acceleration issues on Lexus models, but closed it seven months later.

Medical malpractice victims in Georgia are not only injured and killed by negligent health care, but are also victimized by the state via caps on so called non-economic damages. In Georgia, the cap limits these damages to $350,00.00.

Many people have pointed out that this is inherently unfair, especially since the most grievously injured victims are penalized to a greater extent. In effect, the legislature, with help of the governor, decreed that if you, or a loved one is retired or too young to have an earning capacity, the value of your life or that of a loved one, is $350,000.00. Of course thiose who are high wage earners, such as many doctors, would be entitled to a higher recovery in the form of lost income.

This grossly unfair law is currently before the Georgia Supreme Court awaiting an opinion. Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a similar law passed by the Illinois legislature 4 years ago.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have seen our share of dangerous products recalled for one reason or another; however, last week’s recall of numerous Toyota models of automobiles and trucks probably sets a new record. In late 2009, Toyota issued a recall of 4.2 million vehicles because it was thought that they could interfere with the gas pedal and cause sudden acceleration. Now Toyota has issued a recall affecting 2.3 million vehicles and has suspended the sale of eight models, including their most popular model, the Camry, over faulty gas pedals that could stick and cause unexpected acceleration and result in an automobile accident.

Toyota is working with CTS Corp., which manufactures gas pedals for Toyota, to redesign the pedals and to find a remedy for what is believed to be a condensation problem which can cause the pedal to move slowly or in some cases get stuck.

In the meantime, there are thousands of potentially dangerous vehicles of the road which could suddenly accelerate and cause serious injuries to the occupants and others or even cause the wrongful death of innocent people.

In a blog of a few days ago we wrote about the dangers of “distraction driving.” Statistics have been released from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration indicating that many people across the United States are being injured on a daily basis as a result of the use of cell phones and texting devices. Obviously, when using these devices, the driver is “distracted” and the more distracted the driver the less safe the driver. Regrettably, the State of Georgia has yet to enact a ban on distraction driving.
The good news is that the United States government has now barred interstate truckers and bus drivers from sending text messages while behind the wheel. According to the United States Transportation Secretary, enactment of the federal ban on texting while driving for truck drivers “is an important safety step, and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving.”
The government’s announcement followed a study released in July by Virginia Tech’s Transportation Institute which found that when truckers text they are 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash or near miss situation than otherwise. Last year, President Obama banned federal employees from texting while driving government vehicles and from texting in their own cars if they used government issued phones or were on official business. Again, these are all steps in the right direction. One day, we hope that the Georgia Legislature will enact similar prohibitions on distraction driving so that the citizens of the State of Georgia will be protected from the dangers of “distraction driving.”

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act. A key component of this law was to prevent attorneys from contacting members of a victim’s family for at least forty-five (45) days after an airline crash. After a crash involving serious injuries or deaths, families need to be left alone to tend to family matters. They do not need to be besieged by attorneys seeking to profit upon their misfortunes. In recognition of the fact that oftentimes members of the Bar fail to adhere to the high standards of professionalism we would hope would be adhered to without this law, Congress passed this law to protect victims of these tragedies.
We read last week that a Detroit lawyer has been ordered to pay $5,000.00 to settle a Complaint against him filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Michigan concerning a violation of this Act. Allegedly, the lawyer sent a solicitation lawyer from his Detroit office directly to a victim’s family within twelve (12) days of a tragic crash. The case apparently was investigated by the Inspector General’s Office for the United States Department of Transportation and resulted in the civil fine imposed on the attorney.
Unfortunately, lawyers oftentimes approach victims in hospitals right after tragedies and in other contexts where it is inappropriate to do so. Yes, clients need to be advised of their rights and yes, clients need legal advice when dealing with tragedies affecting their loved ones. But, clients do not need to be solicited directly by attorneys when they are grieving or dealing with the results of a tragic event. Clients should reach out to attorneys when they are ready to do so and they should not be besieged and bombarded by those seeking to profit from their misfortune.

The statistical evidence regarding automobile accidents continues to demonstrate that drivers who are distracted while driving are dangerous drivers likely to be involved in accidents. Texting while driving, using cell phones while driving and other distractive driving problems continue to cause more and more accidents on our highways and more and more injuries to innocent third parties endangered by such conduct.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2008, there were a total of 34,017 fatal crashes in which 37,261 individuals died. Sixteen percent (16%) of the total fatalities were due to driver distraction. The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of the fatal crashes increased from eight percent (8%) in 2004 to eleven percent (11%) in 2008. This is hardly surprising because more and more drivers are using their cell phones and are texting while driving. Drivers under the age of 20 had the highest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes according to NHTSA sixteen percent (16%). Again, this statistic is hardly surprising because those who seem to use their cell phones the most and/or text while driving are the younger drivers on the road.

Of the 1,630 injury crashes reported throughout the United States, NHTSA estimates that an astounding twenty-one percent (21%) involved distracted driving.

Last fall Toyota announced the largest auto recall in U.S. history after numerous sudden unintended acceleration accidents were reported, many of which resulted in fatalities. Now, Toyota has announced an additional recall of 2.3 million vehicles to correct this same problem. Why the additional recall? It appears that Toyota is doing so because ABC News is soon to report an increase in sudden acceleration cases since the recall last year. According to news reports, there have been 60 new cases of sudden unintended acceleration cases involving Toyota vehicle.
In one tragic occurrence outside of Dallas, Texas, four people were killed when a Toyota sped off the road through a fence and landed upside down in a pond. Even though Toyota has long blamed maladjusted floormats for the unintended acceleration problem, however, in this particular accident, the floormats were found in the car’s trunk where the owners had been advised to put them as part of the earlier recall. Thus, the evidence continues to mount that this problem with Toyotas is not caused by floormats but rather by onboard computer glitches and other engineering issues.
While we are pleased that Toyota has finally recalled its dangerous products, obviously, it is disturbing that Toyota refused to do so earlier for all affected vehicles. From the reported news coverage, had it done so, it may be that an additional 60 cases involving injuries and/or fatalities may have been avoided.

Georgia injury lawyers know that defective and dangerous products of all types are sold in this country. The use of some of the dangerous products have resulted in serious injuries and in some cases death. Several years ago, the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP represented the family of a young boy in a products liability case. The boy died in a house fire caused by a defective humidifier. The types of dangerous products run the gamut.
A new product recall involving baby strollers was reported just this week. After the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission got reports of children’s fingertips being amputated, Graco Children’s Products, Inc. a division of Newell Rubbermaid, recalled a million and a half strollers. The recall applies to Graco’s Passage, Alano and Spree Strollers and Travel Systems, which were sold at various retailers, including Walmart, Target, Toys “R” Us from October 2004 to December 2009. The CPSC has received reports of 5 fingertip amputations and 2 fingertip lacerations.
If you or a loved on have been injured as a result of a dangerous product, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP for a free consultation.

This is a question that we are asked by virtually every client in every case we have. The answer is that if a settlement offer is made which is approximately equal to what one can expect to receive at a jury trial then the case should be settled. In other words, there would be no need for a jury trial because the settlement offer being made is approximately what one would likely receive in front of a fair and impartial jurors. If the offer is below what one is likely to receive from fair and impartial jurors then we recommend that clients not accept the settlement offer. Obviously, if the offer is above what we reasonably believe a fair and impartial jury would award in a particular case, we recommend that our client accept such an offer.

It is not always easy to predict what a fair and impartial jury would do with a particular case. The nuances and unique facts of any case obviously influence claim evaluation. If liability is strong and if damages are good and the client otherwise makes a favorable impression, such a case has a greater settlement value than does a case where there are liability issues, damage issues and/or client problems. As always, the facts are key but sometimes the law as it pertains to the unique facts involved will dictate as well the outcome of the case and/or the evaluation of a particular claim.

Sometimes the law is not favorable to a particular position that a party has in litigation. The less favorable the law to their position, the less valuable the claim from a claim evaluation standpoint. In those cases where a client has been victimized by the negligence of a third party, they are truly innocent in the premises and their damages are clear and easily proven, such a case has greater settlement value than does one where the damages may be attributable to acts other than the negligence, there is contested liability based on the facts and circumstances of the case and/or the client’s expectations are unreasonable or they do not make a very positive impression and thus a jury may not like them.

Mediation can be employed at any stage of a civil dispute. It can occur before or after a lawsuit is filed. Our experience at this firm has typically been that mediation occurs after a lawsuit is filed and after the parties have become well acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the dispute. Once the parties have access to all the operative and materials facts via written discovery and depositions, it is not uncommon for one party to suggest a mediation of the dispute.

Once mediation is agreed upon, a third party neutral or mediator is selected to preside over the mediation session. The third party neutral is typically an experienced attorney or judge who has experience with the type of dispute at issue. Whether the case involves medical malpractice, products liability, wrongful death, a tractor-trailer accident or other personal injury claim, typically, one tries to select a mediator who has extensive experience in such a case. The parties then appear jointly at a prearranged mediation conference after which time the mediator takes over as a presiding third party neutral.

The role of the mediator at the mediation conference is to facilitate settlement negotiations. The mediator typically listens to both sides summarize their respective contentions and then the mediator meets privately with each side trying to get one side to make an offer and the other side to make a counteroffer thereto. During the negotiation process the mediator probes the weaknesses and strengths of each side and encourages both sides to be open minded always agreeing to compromise their respective positions. Any successful mediator or third party neutral tell both sides that in order for a settlement to occur both sides have to negotiate in good faith and have to agree to compromise, that is accept less than what they would ideally want but nonetheless try to reach a good faith compromise agreement to resolve the dispute.