Articles Posted in car wrecks

Displaying IMG_3213.JPGDisplaying IMG_3212.JPG
It’s only a matter of time before you or a loved one is injured by one of these nuisances that are so prevalent on Atlanta city and county streets these days.  Or it’s just a matter of time before you damage your car from driving over one of them.  The ubiquitous metal plate. Who thought these were a good idea in the first place?  The metal plates in the photographs above are currently on my street, Oakdale Road in unincorporated DeKalb County. These two metal plates have been there for months.  And notice there is really nothing hold them in place other than the mere weight of the things and gravity.  But a truck that ways 60,000 pounds loaded, or an SUV that weighs 10,000 pounds or even a small car that weighs 6,000 pounds going 35 m.p.h. can easily move these plates when they are not pinned down.  Once moved, they become a potentially fatal hazard to the motoring public. Imagine coming upon this monster (see photograph below) as you mind your own business driving down the road. Once your car ran over it, you and your car wouldn’t stand a chance.  The weight of your car would cause the metal plate to flip and your car would fall into the sinkhole below. It is doubtful you could escape without serious bodily injury.  The photographs below show several metal plates that are clearly not pinned down or held down in any way whatsoever.  Car and truck traffic have obviously shifted them, so that the next unknowing driver, potentially YOU, could be swallowed by the hole they are supposed to be covering.  I am confident this is not an isolated situation;  my guess is that you have seen the frightening scenario below multiple times.

IMG_0900-169x300    IMG_2557-169x300
There are actually requirements for the way these metal road plates are required to be placed on the roadway.  For example, steel plates must be fixed in place to avoid movement.  In addition to being firmly in contact with the pavement, they should be either pinned, recessed into the pavement, or secured with asphalt wedges around the perimeter. Pinning into the pavement involves driving pins into the pavements along the edges of the steel plates to prevent movement. Recessing involves cutting out the area where the steel plate will be placed.  If these are the mandatory requirements for use of these monsters, why are they so seldom pinned down or recessed?  As a member of the motoring public, you are entitled to assume these plates have been put down and affixed to the street properly so that they are safe for you to drive over. The law does not require you to drive around them in an effort to avoid them.

Remember the “Pothole Posse” formed by then City of Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin?  It seemed to make progress for awhile, but after the initial excitement about bringing back safe streets, we are right back where we were with our streets littered and cluttered with these metal plates. Recently, in New York, such metal road plates may have played a role in a fatal crash that killed six people.

iphone   This week in Georgia a Georgia State trial court ruled in favor of the social media application Snapchat in a personal injury case and granted Snapchat judgment as a matter of law based on immunity.  The case is Maynard v. Snapchat and is pending in the Spalding County State Court. The plaintiff, who suffered severe brain damage in a wreck when he was hit by a teen who was using Snapchat at the time of the wreck is ably represented by several of my friends, including Mike Terry and Michael Neff, both wonderful lawyers. The suit asserted that Snapchat’s speed filter—a feature which allows a user to photograph how fast a user is going—”motivated” McGee to “drive at an excessive speed to obtain recognition and to share her experiences through Snapchat.”  Apparently, young drivers who use Snapchat are now often driving recklessly fast so they can snap a photo of the speed of the car they are driving to share it with all of their Snapchat followers, and then I guess the reckless driver gets to brag to all of her friends, “Hey! Look at me!!  Me! Me! Me!  Look how fast I am driving!!  Whoopeeee!”  But the Snapchat app encourages the driver to break the law, drive way too fast, illegally fast, and then requires an action by the speeding driver to capture the not-to-be-missed moment.  Those few seconds of distraction force the young driver to take her eyes off the road and they often lose control of their car or fail to stay in their lane, resulting in a horrible car wreck and causing untold devastation to an innocent person minding his own business driving on the road that night.  In the Spalding County case the evidence showed the teen driver reached speeds of 113 m.p.h. AWFUL!

The defense attorneys argued successfully that Snapchat was entitled to complete immunity under the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, and whose Section 230 states, “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”  This provision seems to grant immunity for written communications published on the social media application, not for creating an app that encourages someone to break the law in the first place.  Simply reading the literal words of the immunity provision, they would seem to be inapplicable to the facts of this case.  But I’m not a judge and the only opinion that counts is the trial judge’s and he disagreed with me.  Plaintiff’s counsel, I would assume, are considering an appeal.

This case shows a horrifying trend with the Snapchat “speed filter.”  In November of last year in Tampa, Florida, a teen driver who reached speeds of 115 m.p.h. lost control of her car, crossed a median and hit a minivan carrying a family. The wreck killed five people. Snapchat says it actively discourages “their community” to use the speed filter while driving.  If that is true, what is the point of it?  Can Snapchat claim, with a straight face, argue that the speed filter is not designed to be used while driving when it’s entire purpose is to measure a vehicle’s speed?  There is also currently pending in Texas another lawsuit against Apple with essentially the same facts and allegations as the Maynard case here in Georgia but involving Apple’s application Facetime. In that case, a   “driver rear-ended the Modisettes with his Toyota 4Runner at 65 miles per hour — killing five-year-old Moriah Modisette. The driver, Garret Wilhem, told police he was on FaceTime at the time of the crash, and officers found his phone in the car with FaceTime still engaged.”

rejected-1238221-1599x2352-1-204x300
I constantly hear, even from jurors, that we are a “litigious society,”  that everyone sues over everything these days. Assuming this is true, who is to blame?  Critics immediately place the blame at the feet of the injured plaintiffs who must bring the lawsuit for compensation for the injuries they have suffered that were caused by someone’s carelessness. If those darn hurt people who can’t work any longer because of their injuries would just not file a lawsuit we wouldn’t be a litigious society!!  The nerve of these people!  Getting injured through no fault of their own and then expecting compensation for the medical bills, lost wages, pain, inconvenience, inability to work, permanent scarring, loss of their normal quality of life, etc., from the person who caused it all.  The gall! Can you believe these people?

Yes.  Yes, I can. I believe these people because these are the people I represent every single day. These are the people who began their day with their normal routine like every other person but who, unfortunately, came into the path of someone who was careless, someone who wasn’t paying attention to the road, someone who was texting while driving, someone who was reckless and causes an upheaval in the life of someone else due to their negligence and carelessness.

But don’t blame these injured folks. Blame the insurance companies of the careless individuals, because it is the car insurance companies who take the stance “so sue me” and invite litigation that easily could have been avoided had they simply been reasonable in negotiating an insurance claim for personal injury.

LadyJusticeImage
Does your own insurance company owe you a duty? The simple answer is “yes, of course.”  But for any of you who read my blog, you know when dealing with an insurance company nothing is ever simple and you should never assume your own insurance carrier “is on your side.”

I just recently settled a case for my clients for the maximum insurance policy limits of the at-fault driver, even though my clients’ injuries were so severe I am confident a jury would have returned a verdict in their favor well in excess of the insurance limits.  Let me explain the situation.  This case involved a car wreck in which a young driver turned left in front of my clients at an intersection early in the morning. My clients had a green light and were going straight through the intersection. The young driver stated to the police officer he “didn’t see them” before he turned and my clients could not stop their vehicle to avoid the other car that suddenly was directly in front of them as they attempted to travel through the intersection on a green light. Both of my clients suffered severe personal injuries and were hospitalized as a result.

Now a reasonable person at this point would be thinking the driver making the left turn was at fault and his insurance company should pay my clients’ bills, right?  Well, in the words of Coach Lee Corso, “Not so fast!” The insurance carrier for the driver who turned left in front of my clients at first claimed their driver was not liable! The insurance carrier was not going to pay a dime!  That’s when I get involved. After some discussion about the fact that their insured, the young driver, had violated the Rules of the Road by failure to yield the right-of-way to my clients, the insurance company then asserted it’s second position, i.e., my client, who was driving the car, was contributorily negligent by speeding and so it would not be willing to pay anything for his claim, but since his wife, who was a front-seat passenger, cannot be legally contributorily negligent, they would be willing to pay her something for her trouble, but not the policy limits.  The absurd position of the insurance company forced me to file suit. In fact, you can say the insurance company actually invited the litigation, taking the “so sue me” attitude, and I obliged them. I am sure they didn’t consult their own insured about how he wanted the claim handled.  I had to hire an expert accident reconstruction, which is expensive. Neither car had a “black box” that would prove my client was not speeding at the time of the wreck, so my accident reconstructionist performed a signals analysis that proved the defendant could not have possibly had a green left-turn arrow and could not possibly have had the right-of-way at the time he turned left in front of my clients. Then the insurance company’s lawyer took the depositions of my clients.  Their undisputed testimony left no room for doubt that they had the right of way and the defendant was at fault. Following their depositions, I made a settlement demand on the insurance carrier for the insurance limits of their insured. I gave the insurance company 30 days to respond to the demand, and if they did not pay policy limits, the demand would be withdrawn and we would proceed to trial.

bicyclewarningsignMy friend and  fellow trial lawyer, Lester Tate, and I are representing a young man in a case against Kawasaki, the manufacturer of the motorcycle he was riding when he was severely injured because it stalled on him. Months later, he received a recall notice that said the voltage regulator on his motorcycle was defective.  The minute he received the notice he thought that sure explained what happened to him the day his world was turned upside with a catastrophic motorcycle wreck.  The case was heard yesterday before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, our appellate court for cases that are filed in Federal Court, here in the Northern District of Georgia.  One of the issues on appeal involves Kawasaki’s duty to warn its customers who have bought or used that particular motorcycle about a known defect with the motorcycle’s voltage regulator.  So, a manufacturer’s duty owed to its consumer is heavily on mind right now.

What exactly is a manufacturer’s duty to want its customers of a potentially defective product?  Under Georgia law , when the manufacturer of a product has actual or constructive knowledge that its product involves danger to users of the product, the manufacturer has a duty to warn users of the danger. Battersby v. Boyer, 526 S.E. 2d 159, 162 (Ga. App. 1999). O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(1) provides that “[t]he manufacturer of any personal property sold as new property directly or through a dealer or any other person shall be liable in tort, irrespective of privity, to any natural person who may use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property and who suffers injury to his person or property because the property when sold by the manufacturer was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended, and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.” The term “not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended” as used in this statute means “defective.” Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 645(1983). “In a product liability case, the existence of a duty to warn depends upon the foreseeability of the use in question and the type of danger involved, and the foreseeability of the user’s knowledge of the danger.” Dorsey Trailers Southeast v. Brackett, 363 S.E.2d 779, 781 (Ga. App. 1987). A manufacturer may be subject to liability for failing to warn the user adequately of the known or foreseen danger if there is no reason to believe the user will realize the dangerous condition.” Id. at 477; see Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 319 S.E.2d 470, 477 (Ga. App. 1984). When a duty to warn arises, the duty may be breached in one of two ways: (1) failure to communicate the warning to the ultimate user; or (2) failure to provide an adequate warning of the product’s potential risks. Battersby, 526 S.E.2d at 163; see Wilson Foods Corp. v. Turner, 460 S.E.2d 532, 534 (Ga. App. 1995) (citing Thornton v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours &Co. Inc., 22 F.3d 284, 290 (11th Cir. 1994)). “This duty to warn is a continuing one and may arise “months, years, or even decades after the date of the first sale of the product.” Watkins v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999). “Some products are defective solely due to an inadequate or absent warning.” Chrysler Corp. v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723, 724, 450 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1994).

The issue of failure to warn, including the lack of any warning or the adequacy of any warning, is one that the jury must resolve. See, e.g., Dorsey Trailers Southeast v. Brackett, 363 S.E.2d 779, 782 (Ga. App. 1987); Bryant v. BGHA, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1389-90 (M.D. Ga. 2014); Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 645 (1983)(“Whether a duty to warn exists thus depends upon foreseeability of the use in question, the type of danger involved, and the foreseeability of the user’s knowledge of the danger. See Greenway v. Peabody International Corp., 163 Ga.App. 698, 294 S.E.2d 541 (1982). Such matters generally are not susceptible of summary adjudication and should be resolved by a trial in the ordinary manner. Beam v. Omark Ind., Inc., 143 Ga.App. 142, 145, 237 S.E.2d 607 (1977).”).

policecarPolice chases seem to be extremely prevalent in our everyday goings on lately. Last night I watched the famous “slow speed chase” of O.J. Simpson when he fled the Los Angeles Police Department back in 1994  instead of turning himself in as agreed upon following the murders of his wife Nicole and her friend. The mini-series drama currently being shown on the FX Network about “The Juice” reminded me of the night that slow speed chase happened as my husband and I watched in horror and amazement in 1994 as my husband put together the crib for the child we were expecting in August of that year.  Then I woke up this morning to a text alert from the AJC that there had been another police chase here in Atlanta this morning. This morning’s chase, which was near the Douglas-Cobb county line, near Six Flags Over Georgia,  was of two people suspected of having robbed a convenience store of cash and cigarettes.  This police chase ended with the suspects’ car crashing into a utility trailer. The police caught one suspect and the other suspect got away. Apparently, no one was injured in the police chase this morning.  Thank Goodness, I might add.  In San Francisco, California on Sunday, February 7, three people were killed in a police chase after police chased a car that had been seen “doing circles” in the middle of a city street.

We were not so fortunate, however, with regard to two other police chases that occurred a week ago. In Gwinnett County, a totally innocent older couple was killed in a police chase in which the Johns Creek Police Department started a high speed chase of a vehicle for “equipment violation” because it had multiple antennae.  This chase lasted for 4 miles and reportedly reached speeds of 83 m.p.h.  The couple was driving home after celebrating the 78th birthday of one of them.  The suspect’s car crashed into the innocent couple’s car and killed them. No, the police car didn’t hit the couple’s car, but in the world of proximate cause, “but for” the police car and the police chase this lovely couple would be still be alive.  Tragically, and almost unbelievably, the next day a totally innocent grandmother who was taking her precious two grandchildren to church on Sunday morning,  was killed, along with those precious two grandchildren, in a high speed police chase.  This time it was the College Park Police Department chasing a vehicle driven by a suspect suspected to have stolen a vehicle. The chase lasted a purported 10 miles. Five innocent lives lost in the span of two days due to high speed police chases.

Think for just a minute how you would feel if one of your loved ones were killed because of a high speed chase.  How would you feel?  Would you think the high speed police chase had been unnecessary?  Not worth the risk?  Put yourself in the shoes of those grieving family members for a minute.

ignition1 ignition2
My car has a push button starter:  am I at risk? The short answer is yes.  Not only are YOU are risk but anyone who lives in your house if you have an attached garage in which you park your car is at risk, too, for carbon monoxide poisoning and perhaps even death. Does your push button starter look anything like the one above? I was driving a rental car on business in another state recently and it had one of these push button starters. I had never used one before, but I had certainly heard of their inherent dangers. The problem is a design flaw. You may think you have turned off the ignition, after all, you have the keyless fob in your pocket with you.  But often the engine is so quiet while in park you don’t realize it is still running. If you park your car in an attached garage, dangerous carbon monoxide gas can easily enter your home and kill you and anyone in your home while you sleep, without your ever waking up to realize there is a fatal hazard in your home.

This design flaw is well known to car manufacturers. “We have documented at least 19 fatalities that are specifically attributed to keyless ignition vehicles since 2009 and 25 more close calls,” said Janette Fennell, founder and president of the safety group KidsAndCars.org. “As more keyless ignition vehicles are sold, we are going to see these predictable and preventable injuries and deaths increase.”

There is a simple solution:  an automatic shut-off system for the car if it has been running for a certain amount of time without moving, e.g., 30 minutes or so. This would prevent any carbon monoxide build up if you accidentally leave your car running in your garage. Some cars do have this safety feature, others do not. It is difficult at this point even to understand why not all such cars would include the automatic shut-off feature. There is currently a class action lawsuit filed against 10 automobile manufacturers who have not incorporated this simple fix of a deadly design defect. According to the suit, the automakers have long known about the risk keyless ignitions pose. In fact, the suit claims, that at least 27 complaints have been submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since 2009.  There is evidence that these cars continue to run regardless of how far away the keyless fob is from the running car.

911call
There has been a lot of press this past week about the near death of NBA basketball player Lamar Odom at the Love Ranch in Las Vegas.  Fortunately, Mr. Odom’s condition has improved dramatically.  As part of the media frenzy about the incident, parts of the 911 calls when Mr. Odom was found unconscious have been played over and over on the radio and on the internet.  I have heard several “journalists” comment that they can’t believe the 911 calls were made public and they should be private.

So, is your 911 call public information?  Yes! Any 911 call is public information subject to the State’s open records act.  Here in Georgia, our Georgia Open Records Act (“ORA”), O.C.G.A. Section 50-18-70 et. seq., defines “public record” as “all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, computer based or generated information, data, data fields, or similar material prepared and maintained or received by an agency or by a private person or entity in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency or when such documents have been transferred to a private person or entity by an agency for storage or future governmental use.”  A taped 911 call certainly fits within this definition. And citizens shouldn’t want it any other way.  The Open Records Act is sometimes referred to as “The Sunshine Law” because it throws light on what your government is doing.   As our Attorney General Sam Olens has said “Government operates best when it operates openly.” –Attorney General Olens.  Give credit to AG Olens who has made strengthening the Georgia Open Records Act one of his primary goals.

When I represent a client in which there was a 911 call made, such as a car wreck, or an injury on a business premises, or anything of that nature, I routinely immediately request the 911 calls through the Georgia Open Records Act. I do this to obtain them before they might be lost or erased.  911 calls can be a treasure trove of information. Quite often I obtain the names of eyewitnesses to car wrecks who are often never even listed on the police report. Plus they often contain a short statement from the eyewitness about how the wreck happened, stated immediately after they saw it!  That’s pretty hard to beat!!  So, yes, any 911 call is available to the public with a simple request and I will continue to request them in every case of mine.

head on collision
The Georgia State Patrol and and various National Databanks, including the National Safety Council, have for years kept the morbid statistics of how many people die during any given Holiday weekend. I have blogged about this in the past and try to keep tabs on whether Georgia highways are getting safer. Here are 5 things to know about traffic safety from the 2015 Labor Day:

  1.  In Georgia this past weekend 14 people lost their lives in traffic incidents as reported by the Georgia State Patrol. Just for comparison’s sake, there were only two traffic fatalities in Connecticut. In Kentucky there were nine.
  2. The National Safety Council estimated there would be 395 traffic fatalities in the United States this Labor Day. Final National numbers are not yet in as some polls include any fatalities up to Tuesday morning.

Ridesharing services have been advancing in the app world over the last few years. Quite a few companies have become enormously popular for their efficiency and ease compared to traditional taxi companies. GPS based with pre-set payment settings, the whole interaction takes place online and even shows you a map counting down the moments until your driver arrives. Uber has quickly become a household name, and alongside Lyft, dominate the ridesharing sphere. There are, however, a number of safety concerns associated with the process. It is a rather strange concept to get into a stranger’s personal car and trust them to drive you safely to your destination. Recently, Uber has been attempting to address many of these concerns as well as handle a number of injury lawsuits that have occurred.

Fortunately from an insurance perspective, these ridesharing companies have got you covered. There is major debate between the taxi companies and Uber/Lyft regarding this topic, because taxi companies believe they better protect against possible insurance disparities after an injury. Largely in response to this criticism and attack by traditional taxi companies,  Lyft and Uber now both have  liability policies that provide additional coverage in the event that the passenger is injured in a driver’s vehicle and the driver’s insurance doesn’t cover all of their injuries, which is almost always the case. Not only that, but even in the event of an accident in which the company driver is not at fault, and the other motorist at fault is uninsured, they will still provide coverage if you are injured.

The Georgia Legislature passed a ridesharing bill this session (2015) that essentially sought to level the regulation  of Uber and Lyft with that of traditional taxi companies.  House Bill 225, which passed the Senate by a 48-2 vote, is the culmination of efforts to require the app-based transportation industry to meet the same standards that apply to other transportation providers, such as taxis and limousine companies.  “The world as we know it in transportation has changed because of transportation companies like Uber and Lyft,” said Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta, who carried the bill in the Senate. “This creates a new framework that allows them to grow with light regulation and common-sense policies.”  Governor Deal signed the bill into law in March 2015 which mandates companies like Uber must have $1 Million in insurance coverage for its passengers. There continue to be squabbles between the traditional taxi companies and Uber, but free market principles of competition should control the outcome.