Category: Car Wrecks

Negligence law in Georgia

What is negligence law? At the risk of sounding overdramatic, at Gomez & Golomb LLC, we believe negligence law is similar to the golden rule, which is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Here is why.

Long ago, the first laws developed to discourage citizens from intentionally harming each other. Under this system, when someone intentionally harms another, the state prosecutes the responsible person. If found guilty, the state puts the person in jail.

But what about when someone unintentionally harms another? Clearly, it would be unfair to put someone in jail for conduct that lacked intent, but, at the same time, it would also be unfair to the injured person if there were no consequences? As a middle ground, we created a set of rules known as negligence law in which a negligent party isn’t prosecuted or jailed for wrongdoing, but is liable for the monetary damages caused to the harmed party. In other words, as we go about our daily business in our communities, we are obligated to act in a manner consistent with that of an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person. Georgia law confirms this principle. See O.C.G.A. § 51-1-2.

The personal injury cases we handle at Gomez & Golomb LLC all involve negligence. This means the responsible parties harmed our clients but did so without any intent. Examples of cases we’ve worked on are drivers who didn’t pay close enough attention to the road, manufacturers who design products without attention to safety, or doctors who provide medical treatment that isn’t as good as it should be.  None of these parties woke up with up plans to harm to anyone, but, for various reasons, each acted in a way that a careful, responsible, and reasonable person would not.

In our view, our society is better off when someone who intentionally harms another is put in jail and someone who unintentionally harms another is responsible for paying for the damages. While not everyone agrees with this system, and there is no doubt abuse, the alternative is a society without incentive to treat each other as each of us would like to be treated (the golden rule).

At Gomez & Golomb LLC, we see our job as making sure our clients are fairly compensated for legitimate injuries sustained because another person or entity failed to act responsibly.

Venue in a Trucking Case

In a recent dispute over where a wrongful death lawsuit should be tried, the plaintiff made the winning argument against a commercial trucking company. Natasha Blakemore as Mother of Natroya Hulbert v. Dirt Movers, Inc. et al., A17A1540 (January 11, 2018). The plaintiff argued that the case should be tried in the county where the injury took place, while the trucking company argued it had the right to remove the case to the county where its office was located.

The two statutes at issue were O.C.G.A. §§ 40-1-117(b) and 14-2-510(b)(4). O.C.G.A. § 40-1-117(b) is part of the Georgia Motor Carrier Act, which are the statutes that govern commercial motor carriers. That statute says an injured party who sues a motor carrier can bring the case in the county where the injury occurred regardless of where the motor carrier is located. In contrast, O.C.G.A. § 14-2-510(b)(5), which governs corporations, says that, regardless of where the injuries occurred, a corporation is entitled to have the case adjudicated in the county where it maintains its principal place of business.

Here, Dirt Movers, Inc. argued that O.C.G.A. § 14-2-510(b)(5) should apply even if venue was proper under O.C.G.A. § 40-1-117(b). The Court of Appeals disagreed. Holding that if venue was proper under both O.C.G.A. §§ 40-1-117(b) and 14-2-510(b)(4), which was true here, the plaintiff was entitled to bring her lawsuit in the county where the injuries occurred.

Nice try by the trucking company, but the case will go forward in the county where the injuries occurred.

Recover punitive damages in Georgia (even without injuries)

Punitive Damages: Generally

If you’re involved in an car wreck and the conduct of the party who caused the collision was reckless and intentional, you may be entitled to punitive damages. The two most common examples of misconduct that warrant punitive damages are hit and run and drunk driving. Also, whether the offending party has a history of reckless driving is an important factor. The purpose of of punitive damages isn’t to make the injured party whole, but rather to send a forceful message to the offending party and the public that reckless driving won’t be tolerated. Probably everyone can agree that limiting reckless driving is a worthwhile undertaking.

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(b) provides that “[p]unitive damages may be awarded in such actions in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.”  O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(c) further states that punitive damages “shall be awarded not as compensation to a plaintiff but solely to punish, penalize, or deter a defendant.”

Leaving the scene and driving under the influence are examples of of wilful misconduct, wantonness, and that want of care that shows conscious indifference to the consequences. According to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(f), in these situations, a jury is entitled to award the injured party unlimited punitive damages:

In a tort case in which the cause of action does not arise from product liability, if it is found that the defendant acted, or failed to act, with the specific intent to cause harm . . . there shall be no limitation regarding the amount which may be awarded as punitive damages . . .”

Punitive Damages: Property Damage Claims

In Georgia, punitive damages are recoverable in a property damage claim even if there are no injuries. Bowen v. Waters, 170 Ga. App. 65 (1984), aff’d, 175 Ga. App. 884 (1985) (“While an award of punitive damages is authorized only where a tortfeasor’s conduct is of an aggravated nature, such an award may properly be based upon an aggravated tort involving only property rights.”).

At Gomez & Golomb, unlike some others, we’re not a cookie cutter personal injury law firm. We devote our full attention to each case so that we maximize your recovery. If you’re in a collision, please call us to discuss whether your case is the type that might justify punitive damages, and what other damages you might be entitled to.

O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1: New Law Regarding “Holt” Bad Faith Demands in Georgia

Our last blog post covered the origins of the Holt case, which for the past 20 years has protected injury victims from insurance companies who unreasonably and untimely refuse to settle straight forward injury claims.

Because Holt exposes insurance companies who act in bad faith to potentially large penalties, insurance companies have been pushing the Georgia legislature to repeal Holt time-limit settlement demands.

On March 22, 2013, the Georgia legislature passed House Bill 336, which is a compromise between plaintiffs’ lawyers and insurance companies. The new law, signed by Governor Nathan Deal, codifies the Holt settlement demand process. Fortunately, the new settlement process leaves in place the requirement that insurance companies negotiate claims in good faith.

The new law will be known as O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-11-67.1 and will apply to all automobile wrecks after July 1, 2013. Some of the highlights of the new law are: settlement demand letters now must be sent prior to filing a lawsuit, the claim must involve injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the demand must be prepared by an attorney, the demand must allow the insurance company 30 days to accept the offer, and the demand must be sent by certified or overnight mail.

The changes will give both sides a fair opportunity to fairly and timely resolve serious car wreck injury cases.

Please call us at (404) 382-9994 if you have any questions regarding the new law.

Origin of “Holt” Bad Faith, Time-Limit Demands in Georgia

At this point in time, Georgia law favors bad faith claims against insurance companies who fail to reasonably settle personal injury claims. In the current era of tort reform, this is a welcome relief for injury victims.

The favorable law stems from the 1989 case of Holt v. Southern General Insurance Company, SC89CV13484 (Muscogee State Court). In that case, Southern General was successfully sued for negligently failing to timely settle an automobile injury claim.

In Holt, the plaintiff offered to settle her injury claim for the other driver’s $15,000 policy limits with Southern General. Importantly, the offer was good for only 10 days (subsequently five more days were added to the deadline). Southern General never told its policy holder about the proposal and deadline, and did not respond within the time set by the plaintiff.

Three days after the settlement period expired, Southern General offered to pay the policy limit. The plaintiff rejected the proposal as not being timely and sued. Southern General made two more offers before trial to pay the $15,000. The plaintiff again turned Southern General down, saying she would no longer settle for the policy limits.

On July 19, 1988, a jury returned a verdict of $82,000.00 against the responsible driver.  After Southern General paid its policy limits of $15,000, the responsible driver was left personally liable to the plaintiff for $67,078.00 plus 12% interest. The responsible driver assigned her right to the plaintiff to sue Southern General for failure to settle.

 On July 18, 1990, a jury awarded $208,000.00 to the plaintiff, including $100,000.00 in punitive damages. The jury award was upheld by Georgia appellate courts, insuring insurance companies have a duty to exercise due care in settling claims.

Since Holt, our firm has been successfully making time-limit demands on insurance companies. We will continue to use Holt and other strategies to maximize our clients’ recoveries in every case.

On July 1, 2013, a new law will take effect that will modify the use of Holt demands. In our next blog, we will discuss these modifications and the impact they will have on future injury cases.