Atlanta Injury Attorney Blog

Plaintiff V.J.D. was a tenant in the ground level unit of an apartment building in Stone Mountain. DeKalb County Housing Authority owned the building and Spring Chase, Inc. managed the property. In June 2001, the plaintiff discovered a chair beneath one of her apartment windows. Her window screen had been cut out. She reported the incident to Spring Chase and asked to move apartments. Spring Chase required that she pay a transfer fee, which the plaintiff could not afford. Therefore, she was not permitted to relocate within the complex.

In September 2002, an unknown man entered the plaintiff's apartment. He raped her and beat her face. A police officer testified that the perpetrator "overcame her window and its lock." The plaintiff sued the owner and manager of the property. She alleged they failed to provide adequate security for the complex, that they were aware of at least two other attempts to enter her apartment, and that they refused to permit her to move apartments. The jury returned a $9M verdict for the plaintiff.

If a property owner has reason to anticipate a criminal act, they then have a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against this risk of harm. The court will examine prior criminal activity on the premises to determine the foreseeability of the crime. In order to be "foreseeable," the crime must be substantially similar to previous criminal activity.

In this case, the criminal attack was foreseeable because the plaintiff had specifically warned the owner about the exact method of entry that the criminal utilized.

A trespasser is one who, intentionally or by mistake, enters upon another's property without authority or permission from the owner to do so. A landowner does not owe a duty to trespassers to keep the premises in a safe condition. Rather, the landowner owes only a minimal duty to avoid willfully or wantonly injuring the trespasser.
One exception to this rule involves anticipated trespassers. An anticipated trespasser is one who the landlord knows or has reason to anticipate would come onto the property. The landlord has a duty to protect anticipated trespassers from dangerous activities or hidden perils on the premises.

The landlord has a higher duty of care if the individual is a licensee. A licensee is permitted to be on the property for social purposes (they are usually a social guest). The landowner has a duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises safe. He must protect licensees from known hazards on the premises.

The landlord has the highest duty of care if the individual is an invitee. An invitee is a person who is invited onto the property for business reasons (customers of a business, job applicants etc...). As with licensees, landowners have a duty to repair and correct known dangers in order to keep the property safe. Additionally, a landowner must reasonably inspect for and correct unknown hazards.

Gwendolyn Carothers and her boyfriend checked into a Super 8 Motel in the Cobb County Town Center Mall. The next morning Gwendolyn's boyfriend left the room to run an errand while Gwendolyn was still sleeping. Gwendolyn awoke because someone was "improperly touching and licking her." The perpetrator was a Super 8 male employee.

Gwendolyn sued Super 8 Motel, alleging that Super 8 failed to exercise care to keep the premises safe for motel guests. Super 8 failed to perform a criminal background check on the male employee before hiring him and entrusting him with a master key. Additionally, the Super 8 manager knew that while he was employed at Super 8, the employee had been arrested several times on various charges. The jury returned a verdict for $550,000 in Gwendolyn's favor.

An employer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring individuals who, because of the type of employment, may pose a threat to members of the public. An employer is liable for negligent hiring and retention if the employer knew or should have known that its employee had violent and criminal propensities. However, the employer does not need to foresee the employee's specific behavior. An employer may be liable if they failed to accurately check an employee's references, criminal records, or background information that may have shown the employee's likelihood for criminal behavior. Additionally, an employer may be liable if they failed to dismiss an employee after finding out the employee was a violent or abusive individual.

A Georgia state statute (OCGA § 17-5-21(a)(5)) limits when authorities can obtain a search warrant for "private papers." In 1993, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the statute protected papers relating to the "doctor-patient" privilege (the GA Legislature does not recognize such a privilege). Thirteen years later, the Court decided to question the 1993 decision.

Phillips Byrd Brogdon, Jr. rear-ended another vehicle in December 2007. He was treated at Gwinett Medical Center. In the resulting case, prosecutors obtained records of Brogdon's visit to the hospital which proved he was diagnosed with alcohol intoxication and had a blood alcohol content of 0.329. The judge allowed the medical records to be introduced as evidence in the trial and the Supreme Court elected to consider the question of whether "private papers" applies to a search warrant issued for medical records maintained by a hospital.

The Court held that the term "private papers" covered those papers that "belonged to the accused" or were "in his possession." Medical records did not meet that test; therefore they were not covered by the privilege. The decision will make it easier for prosecutors to obtain defendants' medical records in DUI cases. Such records may also be important in drug overdose and domestic violence situations.

The holding opens the door for future constitutional challenges.

Atkins v. MRP Park Lake LP (A09A2125) - Premises/Landlord Liability

On April 8, 1998, a tornado struck the Park Lake apartments, which were owned by MRP Park Lake LP and managed by Realty Management Corporation. The storm caused severe damage to the apartment complex. After the storm, a Realty Management employee assigned two contract workers to fix a leak in Sandra Atkins's roof. The workers placed a tarp over the roof. The tarp had no holes and covered the vent pipes, creating a toxic environment as it trapped carbon monoxide. Atkins was diagnosed with carbon-monoxide poisoning and subsequently filed a personal injury suit against MRP and Realty Management. In November 2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of the defendants.

In Georgia, an employer generally is not responsible for torts committed by independent contractors. However, if a landowner's duty is imposed by statute, it is "non-delegable" and the landowner may be held liable for the independent contract workers' negligence. Under the Georgia statute, landowners have a duty to keep their rented premises in good repair. Liability is imposed on the landlord for any damages resulting from defects in the premises. In this case, the contract workers repaired the roof in a negligent fashion, thus creating a defect in the premises. Therefore, MRP and Realty Management may be liable.

It is important to note that a landlord cannot avoid liability by simply hiring an independent contractor to perform its statutorily-imposed duties.

If you've been injured due to landlord negligence anywhere in Georgia, call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400.

Royalston v. Middlebrooks (A10A0314) - Auto Accident

At 7:00 a.m. on July 28, 2005, John S. Royalston, who was driving a truck for the Georgia Sandwich Company, Inc. (GSC), struck Collie Middlebrooks's pickup truck. Middlebrooks suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result of the accident and brought a personal injury action against Royalston and GSC.

An eyewitness testified that Royalston was "speeding" and "repeatedly changed lanes and passed vehicles." Additionally, a traffic accident reconstructionist testified that based on his investigation, Royalston could have avoided the collision if he had been driving the speed limit or paying attention. Royalston testified that he had two speeding tickets on his record when he was hired by GSC and that he had received six additional speeding tickets between the time he was hired by GSC and the time of the accident. The evidence showed that GSC had knowledge of Royalston's driving habits.

The jury awarded Middlebrooks $3.06M in compensatory damages, $1M in punitive damages, and $621.78K in attorneys' fees. In May 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Royalston and GSC and held that the damages were not unreasonable.

Georgia corporations can be held responsible for their negligent decisions to hire and retain reckless drivers.

If you've been injured in an auto accident, contact the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 today.

In June 2006,Yvonne Bolden, an employee at S&B Engineers and Constructors, suffered a compensable injury to her left hand and began receiving temporary total disability in November 2006. On March 26, 2007, a neurologist reported that Bolden could return to work, with limited restrictions on what she could lift or carry. Bolden's case manager, who accompanied her to the appointment, reported the neurologist's statement to the insurer. The insurer subsequently terminated Bolden's weekly benefits without notice on April 24, 2007. Bolden hired an attorney and sought reinstatement of her temporary total disability from April 24, 2007 until May 9, 2008, when she began a new job.

The Georgia code (OGCA § 34-9-221) requires employers to file a form WC-2 with the board and to send a copy to the employee giving them ten days notice of the termination of benefits. Here, the employer and insurer never filed the WC-2 form at all and never explained to Bolden why they were terminating her benefits. The court held that their noncompliance with the code was unreasonable and that Bolden was entitled to benefits from April 24, 2007 until May 9, 2008.

The code is designed to protect the Georgia injured worker and afford them due process. Not only must the employer notify the employee that their benefits are being terminated, but they must inform them of the reason for the termination.

Visit our Georgia Workers' Compensation Law website at www.atlantaworkerscompensationattorney.com and call us at 404-352-3400 for help with your workers' compensation case anywhere in the State of Georgia.

Judge James V. Selna of Santa Ana, California has hand-picked twenty-six attorneys to lead the nationwide litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. Toyota has recalled more than eight million of its vehicles due to sudden and uncontrolled acceleration. The litigation against Toyota includes 200 lawsuits. Most of the lawsuits seek economic damages for consumer classes whose recalled vehicles have lost value, the rest are personal injury claims on behalf of individuals who were injured or died when their cars accelerated out of control.

Judge Selna appointed twenty-two plaintiffs' lawyers and four defense lawyers for Toyota. Most of the attorneys have worked together in the past and all have handled complex litigation. Many of the attorneys were involved in the massive tobacco litigation in the 1990s and lead the litigation over recalled painkillers Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra. Others spearheaded the litigation against Ford and Firestone over recalled tires linked to Ford Explorer accidents. A few of the attorneys were picked for their expertise in handling airplane and train crash litigation.

All of the appointed attorneys are "familiar with the difficult terrain of personal injury cases," particularly those involving automobiles. Toyota's two lawyers who will be defending the economic loss claims come from Atlanta.

The outcome of the litigation will determine Toyota's liability and serve as a guide for future lawsuits against the auto-maker.

Rebecca and David Lore first noticed a sinkhole near their property on June 27, 2004. The sinkhole was located in the "Recreation Area" and was owned and maintained by the Suwanee Creek Homeowners Association Inc. (SCHOA). Rebecca Lore repeatedly notified SCHOA about the hazard. On October 23, 2006, Rebecca Lore walked into the Recreation Area and stood at least four feet away from the edge of the sinkhole. The ground beneath her suddenly gave way, and she fell, impaling her forearm on a branch. The Lores brought a personal injury claim against SCHOA.

SCHOA had actual knowledge of the sinkhole in this case. Therefore, SCHOA had a legal duty to conduct a reasonable inspection of the sinkhole and the surrounding area to determine whether the hole posed a danger to invitees. Furthermore, SCHOA had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from those dangers. If the court did not enforce this duty, SCHOA could simply escape liability once it was notified of the sinkhole's existence by intentionally failing to inspect the area for instability and other related dangers.

In order to recover for her injuries, Rebecca Lore must prove not only that SCHOA failed to conduct a reasonable inspection of the area and to protect invitees from the danger, but she must prove that she exercised ordinary care for her personal safety and that she had no knowledge of the specific hazard that caused the injury. Rebecca was clearly aware of the sinkhole, but there was no evidence that she knew that the surrounding area, over four feet away from the hole, was unstable.

If you have suffered an injury due to a property owner's negligence in Georgia, call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 for a free evaluation of your case.

On Thanksgiving Day 2008, Walter Sidner called 911 to report a series of loud firework explosions. It was the second time Sidner had to call the police regarding the fireworks, and he was frustrated with the ongoing disturbance. When Sidner spoke with the 911 operator he said, "I'm giving you guys ten minutes to get here, or else...I'm going to shoot those [people] and go out and kick somebody's [rear end]."

When the police arrived at Sidner's house, Sidner directed the officers to the disturbance down the street; however the officers attempted to arrest Sidner. Sidner struggled with the officers. He pushed one officer against the house and another officer suffered a knee injury.

The Georgia Court of Appeals held that although Sidner made threatening comments to the 911 operator, threats are not a crime unless they are directed to an intended victim. Here, Sidner's threats were not intended to terrorize his neighbors. Rather, he was attempting to solicit a police response to his complaint. Additionally, the court held that a citizen has the legal right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Sidner was guilty of no crime and therefore was fully within his legal rights to resist the officers' attempt to arrest him.

At least 232 cases have been filed in state and federal court against BP thus far. Most are proposed class actions representing potentially thousands of commercial fishermen, shrimpers, seafood processors, property owners, and tourism-related businesses who have been harmed by the largest oil spill in U.S. history. Investor lawsuits have also been filed. The suits include claims for personal injury and economic and environmental damages. Additionally, BP faces wrongful death suits brought by family members of the workers killed in the April 20 oil rig explosion. At the request of President Obama, BP has set up a $20 billion fund to compensate oil spill victims. While the fund will help resolve some of the claims, many of the lawsuits are expected to proceed in court.

The spill will likely be the largest environmental case in U.S. history; however oil-spill legislation and general maritime law sets limits on damages. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 currently caps oil-spill damages at $75 million unless the plaintiff can prove gross negligence, willful misconduct or a violation of federal construction or operating requirements. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Justice has decided to open a criminal investigation into the spill, threatening to complicate the pending civil lawsuits.

Chrysler has announced that it will begin a recall of almost 600,000 minivans and Jeep Wranglers later this month. About 289,000 Jeep Wranglers manufactured in 2006-2010 will be recalled due to a potential brake fluid leak. Additionally, about 285,000 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country minivans, from 2008 and 2009, will be recalled due to a wiring problem that can cause a fire inside the sliding doors.

Chrysler will notify owners and dealers about the repairs and will repair the vehicles free of charge. Although no injuries or deaths have occurred yet, Chrysler seems eager to avoid the liability Toyota faces for its malfunctioning automobile parts.

American Multi-Cinema Inc. v. Brown (S08G1934) - Trip & Fall; Premises Liability

On Christmas Day 2003, the AMC movie theater at Southlake Mall was very busy. Just a few minutes before a packed movie theater let out, an AMC employee set up a "Wet Floor" sign over a small spill just outside the auditorium door. Nancy Sue Brown was walking in the middle of the crowd as she exited the theater. By the time she reached the sign, it had fallen over and was lying on the floor. Brown's vision was obscured by the crowd and she tripped over the sign and fell to the floor, seriously injuring her back. Brown sued AMC to recover for her injuries.

An owner or occupier of land has a legal duty to "exercise ordinary care to keep and maintain its premises in a condition that does not pose an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the invited public." Simply setting up a "Wet Floor" sign to mark a spill does not necessarily satisfy this duty. If the presence of the crowd obscured the sign, rendering it ineffective as a warning device, AMC may be liable. Brown produced expert testimony that the type of sign AMC used collapses easily and proved there were safer and readily available alternatives AMC could have used to address the spill. Furthermore, AMC employees placed the sign in an area they knew would be inundated with patrons.

If the jury determines the sign did not serve its proper purpose as a warning device, it will have to determine whether AMC should have foreseen that the sign, as it was placed, might create a tripping hazard to a customer.

This is certainly an unusual case.

Tims v. Hasselberger (A09A0035) - Wrongful Death

Greg Wade Murray died after consuming alcohol and methadone pills at a party Justin Tims hosted while his parents were out of town. Frances and Michael Tims went out of town for the weekend of May 14-15, 2005. Before they left, they instructed their son, Justin, that he was not to stay at their house and he was not to have parties at the house. Justin told his parents he would stay with his friend or his employer. On May 15, 2005, Justin hosted a party which Greg Murray attended. A third party sold Greg three methadone pills and Greg died later that night from methadone toxicity. Greg's mother brought a wrongful death suit against the Timses.

In Georgia, parents are not liable for the torts of their minor children "merely because of the parent-child relationship." Parents are only liable when the negligence of the child is imputed to the parent or the parent was negligent. The Timses did not supply the methadone or the alcohol, therefore the standard for imposing liability is whether the parent knew of the child's "proclivity or propensity for the specific dangerous activity." Here, there was no evidence that the Timses knew Justin or Greg had ever consumed methadone. The Timses had no reason to anticipate that their son would host a party at their home at which an individual would sell Greg methadone and that Greg would ingest the methadone. Furthermore, Georgia has declined to place a duty on parents to arrange for the supervision of their teenagers while they are out of town. The Timses are not liable for Greg's death and had no duty to guard against it.

Although the parent-child relationship is legally significant, parents cannot be held liable for their children's actions if they had no knowledge that the activity was likely to occur.

Gordon v. Fleeman (A09A0433; A09A0434)

Nathaniel Fleeman and Juhmel Barnhart rented a duplex from Lucy Dessesseau, who had leased the property from its owner, Irvine Gordon. Around 2:00 a.m. on February 2, 2005, a fire started in the kitchen of the duplex. When firefighters arrived at the scene, they found Fleeman and Barnhart still in the house. Both men died from smoke and soot inhalation and burns. The fire investigator testified that after inspecting the duplex he found neither a smoke detector nor a backing plate which is used to mount a smoke detector. Two other witnesses testified that there was only one smoke detector, located downstairs.

The Georgia Code (O.C.G.A. § 25-2-40) requires that every dwelling and every dwelling unit constructed prior to July 1, 1987 shall have installed an "approved battery operated smoke detector which shall be maintained in good working order." Furthermore, the Code requires that a smoke detector must be mounted at a "point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each group of rooms used for sleeping." Gordon testified that when he leased the duplex to Dessesseau, he delegated the authority to fix the house to Dessesseau and a contractor. Gordon conceded that he never personally purchased or installed any smoke detectors and never walked through the property to confirm the contractor had installed any detectors.

The court found Gordon liable to the plaintiffs in their wrongful death suit. As the owner of the property, Gordon had a statutory duty to properly install and maintain smoke detectors in the rental home. Gordon could not avoid this duty or the resulting liability by delegating authority to "fix the house" to his lessee and/or a contractor.

If you or a loved one has been injured on a property due to someone else's negligence, call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 for a free evaluation of your case.