Tag: injury

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

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.  

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

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.

Medical Malpractice Affidavits: Causation

A recent appellate case provides a cautionary tale for persons making a claim for injuries due to medical malpractice. Edokpolor v. Grady (A16A1031, decided 9/14/2018) is a recent medical malpractice case that was thrown out of court because the injured party’s expert affidavit was deficient.

In Georgia, negligence claims against professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers require  an expert affidavit verifying the wrongdoing. This affidavit is a mandatory requirement in all malpractice claims in Georgia.

For example, in a malpractice claim against a doctor, the affidavit must be from another doctor who practices the same type of medicine and the affidavit must state that culpable doctor’s treatment of the injured patient fell below the standard of care for similar doctors; importantly, the affidavit must also explain how the alleged negligence caused the injury to the patient.

In Edikpolor, the patient reported to Grady Memorial Hospital with cardiac disease and other issues. After spending 30 days in the hospital, the doctors determined the patient needed a colonoscopy. To prepare for the examination, the doctors ordered that bowel preparation medicine be administered to the patient via a feeding tube. Contrary to these instructions, the nurses administered the medication by mouth. The patient allegedly choked on the medication, which caused fluid to enter her lungs, and she died several weeks later as a result.

The patient’s family sued the hospital, which included a malpractice affidavit from another doctor. The affidavit stated that the nurses were negligent in not following the doctor’s order to use a feeding tube, and that the negligence was the cause of the patient’s death.

The problem in this case is that the affidavit was ruled inadequate because it didn’t explain how and why feeding fluid by mouth is more risky than feeding through a tube. On the other hand, the hospital introduced a contradictory expert affidavit, which stated that choking could occur whether taken by mouth or feeding tube because  what happens is the liquid ends up in the stomach and is then regurgitated into the throat; it is at this point when the liquid is inhaled into the lungs. In other words, administering the fluid by mouth was not necessarily the cause of the injuries.

This case shows that “[a] plaintiff must show that the purported violation or deviation [by the medical professional] is the proximate cause of the injuries sustained. He must prove that the injuries complained of proximately resulted from such want of care or skill. A bare possibility of such result is not sufficient. There can be no recovery where there is no showing to any reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injuries could have been avoided.”

It’s easy to be critical after the fact, but the case underscores that not only must you show negligence, but you must be able to show with relative certainty that the negligence caused the injuries.

Slip and Fall in a Parking Lot

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.

car wreck

Car Accidents

Throughout Atlanta, hundreds of car accidents occur every day. Being involved in a collision is a traumatic experience. Car accidents often occur through no fault of your own and can involve rear-end wrecks and intersection wrecks. Any collision has the potential to result in serious injury to the people involved. Car wrecks in Atlanta involve several issues, including insurance laws, overlapping jurisdiction, and other complex legal issues. Correctly interpreting the law and advocating your position is vital to recovering the full amount of damages caused by the automobile accident.

Damages for car accidents include property loss, medical costs, lost wages, and past and future pain and suffering. When trying to recover these damages, you will usually always be dealing with an insurance company. The insurance adjuster’s goal is to settle your car collision case and save the insurance company as much money as possible. The settlement process is completely on the adjuster’s terms without an attorney. This scenario will rarely yield the best possible result for you. If you hire Gomez & Golomb, you will level the playing field and maximize your compensation.

If you or a family member has suffered a personal injury in a car accident, due to the careless acts of another, contact our office today at 404-382-9994 for a free consultation. We have decades of litigation experience with a proven record of success. We serve client we represent with the highest quality of representation, the utmost skill and diligence, and personalized attention.