Category: Personal Injury

Were you injured or a crime victim on someone else’s property?

Posted by Jeff on
an example of an invitee

If you slip and fall or a rape victim on someone else’s property, the reason why you are on the property matters. Whether you can recover for your injuries often turns on your relationship with the property owner. The law has fancy words to describe the different types of relationships, which we cover below.

The first type of relationship, that of a trespasser, is easy to understand. A trespasser is someone who goes onto someone else’s property without invitation or permission. An example is if someone breaks into your house. If the trespasser gets hurt, you are responsible only if you intentionally tried to hurt the trespasser. This becomes relevant in a landlord-tenant situation. If a lease does not identify a tenant, arguably the tenant is a trespasser and will have a tough claim against the landlord. However, this can be overcome if the landlord knew the tenant was living on the property but took no action.

The next step up is a licensee. This is a person invited onto the property as a social guest but who does not provide a benefit to the owner. A licensee is on the property only for his own convenience. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-2. So, if you invite a friend to your house, your friend is an invitee. If a licensee is injured, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to prevent injury.

Finally, there is what is known as an invitee. An invitee is a person who is invited and provides benefit to the owner. An example is if you go to Publix to buy groceries. You have been invited by the Publix onto the property and are benefiting Publix by buying groceries. With regard to an invitee, a property owner must exercise ordinary care to keep the property safe. This is a higher standard than a licensee. And requires the owner to inspect its property to make sure it is safe for its customers.

If you are injured or are a crime victim on someone else’s property, please call us. Our number is (404) 382-9991.

Sue A Drunk Driver

Posted by Jeff on

In Georgia, if a drunk driver causes a car crash, the injured party can sue a drunk driver and recover additional damages known as punitive damages. What are punitive damages? We have written about punitive damages before. These are damages unrelated to the party’s injuries, but, rather, are to punish, penalize, and deter bad conduct. In theory, even if your injuries are minor, you could get a large punitive damages award. Punitive damages are a warning to the drunk defendant and the public that drunk driving is not tolerated. In other words, because drunk driving is a dangerous and preventable act, punitive damages mean you will pay a high price if you are caught driving drunk.

Georgia recently clarified the law regarding punitive damages:

“At about 5:00 p.m. on September 1, 2016, Lakenin Morris was driving his older cousin Keith Stroud’s car when he collided with a car driven by 18-year-old Alonzo Reid, sending Reid to the hospital. Morris had been drinking with Stroud, and Stroud asked Morris to drive his car and gave him the keys even though Morris was obviously drunk and Stroud knew that Morris was drunk, did not have a valid driver’s license, and had a habit of recklessness. Morris later pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI).” Reid v. Morris et al., S20A0107 (June 29, 2020).

In Reid v. Morris, the issue was whether the injured party could sue a drunk passenger for punitive damages. The passenger argued that since he was not driving the vehicle, punitive damages do not apply. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed. Although Georgia law seems to suggest that punitive damages apply only to “active” wrongdoers such as a driver, the Supreme Court found this interpretation too narrow. Rather, the Court ruled the important question is whether the intoxication caused the collision. Here, the drunk passenger asked his drunk friend to drive his vehicle. Asking a drunk friend to drive your car is negligent and therefore ultimately caused the collision.

If you need to sue a drunk driver, call us at 404-382-9994 to represent you. We have experience getting damages not only for your pain and suffering but also for punitive damages.

What is assumption of the risk and why is it important in a negligence case?

Posted by Jeff on

Insurance companies and defendants use assumption of the risk, a legal doctrine, to try to deny injury claims. The doctrine holds that if a person is aware of a dangerous condition, they should not ignore the risk. The above sign is a clear cut example: if you walk on the rocks and are injured, you cannot blame the landowner.

Most would agree we should be responsible for the consequences of voluntarily participating in activities we know are risky. But what happens when a landowner puts up a sign on their property saying: “be careful where you step because we are not responsible for any injuries.” If you are injured on the property, can the owner rely on its warning?

In Georgia, assumption of risk applies when the person injured (1) had actual knowledge of the danger; (2) understood and appreciated the risks associated with such danger; and (3) voluntarily exposed himself to those risks. Daly v. Berryhill, S19G0499 (2020).

How is this decided? While each case has unique facts, a court will look at whether the evidence shows the person knew of the specific risk of harm associated with the activity that caused injury, yet proceeded anyway. If there is a warning sign, like the one above, you are going to lose. If there was a general warning or no warning, but using common sense might have disclosed the risk, then it is a closer question.

An example would be someone who goes skiing assumes the risk they will fall and break a bone. If this happens, they cannot sue the ski resort for such an injury. On the other hand, if the ski resort failed to properly maintain a path down the mountain, but had warned that the path might be dangerous, then successfully suing the ski resort depends on whether the skier was aware of the particular risk.

If you have an injury case that involves negligence and assumption of the risk, please call us so we can explain your options.  

Getting Insurance to Pay When you Can’t Find the Negligent Driver

Posted by Jeff on

When suing a negligent driver for injuries, the general rule in Georgia is that the negligent driver must be personally served with the legal paperwork—this means a sheriff must hand deliver the legal paperwork to the negligent driver. This undisputedly insures that the negligent driver is aware of the lawsuit. But what happens when the negligent driver’s whereabouts are unknown? For instance, the negligent driver has moved or is intentionally avoiding service.

While this isn’t a common problem, it occurs from time to time. From a personal injury standpoint, this becomes a critical issue when the negligent driver has insurance coverage but can’t be found. Is the insurance company still on the hook to provide coverage?

If the negligent driver can’t be personally served, Georgia law allows what is called service by publication. This is when notice of the lawsuit is published in the local newspaper. This is permitted when the person resides outside the state, or has departed from the state, or can’t, after due diligence, be found within the state, or conceals himself or herself to avoid the service of the summons. This language is found in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(f)(1)(A).

Sounds easy enough, but, as mentioned above, the important question is whether service by publication is sufficient to hold the insurance company liable. Like most legal questions, it depends …

Henderson v. James, A19A0632 (June 6, 2019), a Georgia Court of Appeals decision, faced the exact question. In this case, which involved whether an insurance company could be held liable on behalf of a negligent driver who couldn’t be personally served. Even though the negligent driver had been service by publication, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurance company, holding that service by publication gives a court personal jurisdiction (i.e., allows a recovery against the insurance company) if, and only if, all of the following apply:

(1) The lawsuit must involve a tort (a wrongful act or an infringement of a right leading to civil legal liability). Because injuries from motor vehicle collisions are considered torts, this is not an issue in these cases.

(2) The negligent driver must be a resident in the county where the lawsuit is filed and must be present within the county.

(3) The negligent driver must have actual knowledge of the lawsuit and must be intentionally avoiding being served with the legal paperwork.

Only if the evidence shows that all three of the above standards have been met will the insurance company be responsible for providing coverage. In Henderson, the injured party lost because the evidence before the court didn’t establish the second or third standards.

A trick used by the insurance companies is to file a motion to dismiss on this issue two years after the collision. In Georgia, there is a two-year statute of limitation. If the negligent driver isn’t properly served within the two years, then most of the time the case is dismissed. Generally, there are no second chances after the two years has expired.

Getting personal service within two years after the motor vehicle collision is critical. Please call us if you are injured in a motor vehicle collision. We have over 20 years’ experience dealing with these types of issues.

Suing a Parent of an Adult Child Who Causes a Motor Vehicle Collision

Posted by Jeff on

In Georgia, what happens if you help your adult child by co-signing on a car note and by getting automobile insurance for your child, and your child causes a collision that injures another driver? This was the issue in a recent case decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals: Yim v. Carr, A19A0715 (April 23, 2019). In Yim, the Court decided in favor of the parents who had been sued by the driver injured by their child.

Generally, parents are liable for injuries caused by a child if the child was doing something for the parents or for the family at the time the incident occurred. This is called the “family purpose doctrine.”  To establish that a parent is responsible for their child, the following must be found present: (1) the owner of the vehicle (the parent) must have given permission to a family member to drive the vehicle; (2) the vehicle’s owner (the parent) must have relinquished control of the vehicle to the family member; (3) the family member must be in the vehicle; and (4) the vehicle must be engaged in a family purpose.

In Yim, although the vehicle was registered in parents’ name and driven by a family member, that wasn’t enough because the facts showed that the adult child had authority and control over the vehicle. Thus, title to the vehicle (which was in the parents’ names) or payment for the expenses of operation (which were being made by the parents) aren’t the deciding factors.

If you are injured by a minor driving their parents’ vehicle, please call us to discuss your options to make claims against both the driver and the parents.