Discovery From Third-Parties

Posted by Jeff on

Once a lawsuit is filed, there is a period of discovery in which the parties exchange evidence and take depositions. In almost every case, there is tension in regard to what must be disclosed to the other side. Georgia law says that parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery. It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

What does this mean? Well, it means that most anything that is or may become an issue in the litigation must be disclosed. The same rationale applies to discovery to a third-party (i.e., a party that is not named in the lawsuit). The way this is applied, as a practical matter, is that the court will look at issue in dispute and decide whether the information or documents sought are relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a liberal standard but there must be some connection between the evidence sought and a dispute in the lawsuit.

Food Poisoning in Georgia

Posted by Jeff on

In a big victory for parties injured by contaminated or defective food, the Georgia Supreme Court made it significantly easier for food poisoning victims to recover for their injuries. See Patterson v. Kevon, No. S17G1957. Up until this recent decision, a food poisoning victim was required to submit direct evidence of the defectiveness of the food and was only allowed to submit circumstantial evidence if every other reasonable hypothesis as to the cause of the illness was excluded by the evidence.

What this meant in plain English is that, in most instances, an injured party could make a recovery only if they had the actual food item and if the food item was tested in a lab. This was an unrealistic standard because food poisoning symptoms typically appear several hours after consuming the food. And many times, several days pass before symptoms are connected with the defective food. By that time, the food item is long gone.

The facts of the case were, several days after eating BBQ at a wedding, the victim and another guest were diagnosed with salmonella. In addition, 17 other guests had become ill with similar symptoms. Prior to the current ruling, the BBQ caterer would have been able to successfully argue that because the injured party didn’t have the food item to present as evidence (direct evidence), the injured party would lose. This is because the salmonella, in theory, could have been ingested during another meal.

The new decision says that circumstantial evidence, by itself, is enough. Thus, although the victim couldn’t produce a food item that tested positive for salmonella, he had testimony from 19 people attending the wedding, all who suffered salmonella symptoms in the days following the wedding. Even though this was only circumstantial evidence of his injury, it was enough for the injured party to present his case to a jury.

Slip and Fall in a Parking Lot

Posted by Jeff on

Who is responsible when you’re injured in a shopping center parking lot. Is it the store you were shopping in? Is it the owner of the shopping center? Or, is it both? These were the issues decided in a recent Georgia appellate case. See Boyd v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 18A1140 (July 31, 2018).

In what is likely one of his last opinions, Judge Andrews, writing for the court, predictably sides against the injury party. Judge Andrews is retiring from the bench, and for attorneys who represent injured parties, it can’t come soon enough. While Judge Andrews authors intelligent, articulate opinions, he typically sides with businesses and insurance companies.

With regard to parking lot injuries, the general rule is that a business must keep its premises and approaches safe for its customers. This includes protecting its customers from known dangerous conditions in the parking lot. In the Big Lots case, the customer was injured 45-feet away way from the store entrance. The Court of Appeals explained that an “approach” to a premises refers to property that is within the last few steps taken by the customer, as opposed to mere pedestrians. More specifically, an approach “is that property directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching those entryways to [the] premises under the control of an owner or occupier of land, through which the owner or occupier, by express or implied invitation, has induced or led others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, and through which such owner or occupier could foresee a reasonable invitee would find it necessary or convenient to traverse while entering or exiting in the course of the business for which the invitation was extended.”

In Big Lots, the customer exited the store, walked across a sidewalk, and continued away from the store into the parking lot. The Court decided she was no longer within the store’s “approach” when she slipped and fell because the area was not adjacent to or touching the entry/exit of the store.

Although Big Lots got out of the case, all was not lost for the injured party as she still has a claim against the owner of the shopping center for her injuries.

Venue In An Uninsured Motorist Lawsuit

Posted by Jeff on

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that an uninsured motorist lawsuit against a known defendant and an unknown defendant can be brought in the county where the accident occurred. Carpenter v. McMann et al., S17G1894 (8/2/18).

The Georgia Constitution says, generally, that lawsuits must be filed in the county in which the responsible party resides. But, it also says that if there are two or more responsible parties who reside in different counties, the lawsuit can be filed in either of the defendants’ “home” counties.

In Carpenter, one of the (alleged) responsible parties left the scene of the collision and was therefore unknown. Lawyers and the courts label these unknown parties as “John or Jane Does.” Under Georgia uninsured motorist law, a lawsuit against a John or Jane Doe can be brought in the county where the collision occurred. What is a little unusual in Carpenter is there was one known defendant and one unknown defendant.

The question before the Georgia Supreme Court was whether the lawsuit should have been filed in the county where the known defendant resided instead of where the collision occurred. Reading the Georgia constitution and relevant statutory provisions together, the Court found that the plain language of drafted by the Georgia legislature permitted the injured party to choose the county where the collision occurred (via the unknown driver) and not the county where the known driver resided.

Who Gets Excess Tax Sale Funds in Georgia?

Posted by Jeff on

Revisiting a previous post, under Georgia law, a tax commissioner holds excess funds generated by a tax sale in a fiduciary capacity, and the disbursement of those funds is governed by OCGA § 48-4-5. But, after a tax sale, if there are excess funds after paying taxes, costs, and all expenses of a sale, who gets these funds? The answer, generally, is distribution of excess tax funds is based on the right to the funds at the time of the tax sale.

When there are excess tax funds, the officer selling the property shall give written notice of the excess funds to the record owner of the property at the time of the tax sale and to the record owner of each security deed affecting the property and to all other parties having any recorded equity interest or claim in such property at the time of the tax sale. Such notice shall be sent by first-class mail within 30 days after the tax sale, and shall contain a description of the land sold, the date sold, the name and address of the tax sale purchaser, the total sale price, and the amount of excess funds collected and held by the tax commissioner, tax collector, sheriff, or other officer. The notice shall state that the excess funds are available for distribution to the owner or owners as their interests appear in the order of priority in which their interests exist.

If there is a dispute regarding who is entitled to the excess tax funds, an interpleader is filed and the excess funds are distributed by the superior court to the intended parties, including the owner, as their interests appear and in the order of priority in which their interests exist.

Some issues that come up in regard to distribution of excess tax funds is whether a “super-lien” obtained via a redemption gives the redeeming party a right to claim the excess funds. The answer is no because a super-lien places a lien on the real property but not on the excess tax sale funds.

Another issue is when additional taxes come due after the tax sale—is the tax commissioner allowed to use the excess funds for taxes due after the tax sale? The answer is no because the tax deed purchaser is the party responsible for paying property taxes after the tax sale. The remedy for the tax purchaser is to add taxes paid to the redemption price.

And, finally, what happens if the owner of the property sells the property after the tax sale? Is the new owner entitled to the excess tax sale funds? The answer is no. Georgia law considers excess tax sale funds to be personal property; thus, these funds do not attach to the real estate. One exception is if the sales agreement contains language assigning the excess tax sale funds, then the person who sold the property loses their right to the excess funds.  Georgia Lien Services, Inc. v. Barrett, 272 Ga. App. 656 (2005).