Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog

What is an Activist Judge? Should I Care?

March 6, 2015 | Robin Frazer Clark

What exactly is an “activist judge” and why should I care? I often get this question at cocktail parties. In legal circles, the answer to the question “What is an activist judge” is usually answered “Any judge who rules against you.” But the term is being heard frequently in the news these days, perhaps because of several rulings coming from the United States Supreme Court and perhaps because of the piecemeal change in marriage equality being played out in various’ states’ Probate Courts on a seemingly daily basis.

An “activist judge” is actually a judge who is seen as attempting to legislate from the bench, a judge who, through her or his judicial rulings, is reading into the law something that is not actually there, or who is trying to create law as she or he thinks it should be even if the statute at issue doesn’t actually say or permit such a ruling. It is a judge or justice who makes rulings based on personal political views or considerations rather than on the law, or who issues rulings intended to have political effects. The label of “activist judge” has become pejorative, usually said with a roll of the eye, or a slight snicker of disdain, as if such a judge has no credibility or they are inherently bad. No judge, ostensibly, wants to be labeled an “activist judge.” For example, in Wisconsin the election for the State Supreme Court is around the corner and a challenger to an incumbent justice claims the incumbent is “activist” and, therefore, should be summarily disposed of. The name-calling also usually only applies to judges in appellate courts, who either correct error in the trial courts below or interpret the current law, whether statutory or common (case made) law, to determine how a case should turn out given its unique set of facts. Whether you deem a judge to be an “activist” sometimes appears to be no more than a political question and sometimes seems to come down to your political beliefs. If the judge ruled in opposition to your political beliefs, you may tend to label that judge “activist.” For example, the Conservative ThinkTank The Heritage Foundation, whose self-proclaimed mission “is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense,” has an entire page on its website devoted to calling out what it contends are rulings by activist judges or activist courts. Last month, prompted largely by recent court rulings on gay marriage, an Idaho House committee voted Monday to introduce a resolution calling for the impeachment of federal judges who don’t follow the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

“Judicial Restraint” is often considered the opposite of “Judicial Activism.” “Judicial Restraint” is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.

Effort in Georgia To Eliminate Your Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial

February 11, 2015 | Robin Frazer Clark

Did you know there is underway right now an effort in the Georgia Senate to eliminate your Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in medical malpractice cases? That’s right. A bill has been introduced (again), SB 86, that seeks to eliminate jury trials in medical malpractice claims. This bill was introduced by Senator Brandon Beach from Alpharetta, and this is, at least, the second time around for the bill. Last year the same bill was introduced and a coalition made up of odd bedfellows, the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA) and the Medical Association of Georgia (MAG), opposed it and it died a slow death. Like Lazarus, it has now been resurrected.

Supporters of the bill make the wild claim that this bill would reduce so-called “defensive medicine” where doctors supposedly order unnecessary medical tests. I find such a claim outrageous and offensive. Doctors should, likewise, be offended by this strategy. I have talked with many doctors and taken many depositions of doctors. I have never found them to order what they know are unnecessary medical tests. For a doctor to order what he or she knows to be an unnecessary test (and get paid for it, by the way) would be fraudulent and would violate every ethical oath the physician has ever taken. So that cannot be the real issue with this piece of legislation.

Who is behind it? Not the doctors themselves, as evidenced by the opposition of MAG, the doctors’ professional association. Not the citizens of Georgia. There has been no rallying cry that doctors shouldn’t be held accountable as every other citizen may be with he or she commits negligence that results in injury to someone. There have been no “runaway” verdicts in Georgia, either. Statistics show that doctors and hospitals win almost 85%-90% of all medical malpractice trials in Georgia.

The Unintended Consequences of Apportionment: Part I

January 15, 2015 | Robin Frazer Clark

What is apportionment? How does it affect my case? What does it mean? Can I ever get justice in my case with it?

These are typical questions I often get from my clients in personal injury cases. The issue of apportionment comes up now in just about every case filed. Apportionment is the premise of Georgia law that says a jury may (but is not required to) apportion other people or entities, who are not even being sued in the lawsuit, a percentage of fault should the jury so choose. In a lawsuit, a defendant may claim some other person or company is to blame also and may ask the jury to consider assessing some percentage of fault or blame to that other person or company who is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. This is known as “apportionment,” i.e., the jury apportions fault or blame to whoever they think is at fault. Apportionment came into Georgia jurisprudence in 2005 through the wisdom of Georgia Legislature, part of sweeping reforms then known as “tort reform.” Interestingly, nearly all of these so-called reforms have now been elimimated as unconstitutional by our appellate state courts, e.g., a cap on non-economic damages. That cap lasted only as long as it took for a case with a verdict higher than the Legislature-imposed cap to make its way to the Georgia Supreme Court, where the Court promptly held the cap on damages to violate the Georgia Constitution. That case is Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt, 286 Ga. 731 (2010). Notice the Nestlehutt case was decided in 2010, so there were five years between the creation of that unconstitutional law and the undoing of it. There is no telling how many Georgia citizens were victims of malpractice during those intervening five years who didn’t receive justice.

When the law of apportionment first reared its ugly head, many practitioners and prognosticators, including mediators, declared certain types of cases “dead.” I can remember many of these folks pronounced the premature death of negligent security cases because the defendant apartment complex or defendant business would simply be able to blame the criminal defendant who perpetrated the crime and get off Scot free. Well, in the words of Coach Lee Corso, “Not so fast!” Fairly quickly after the implementation of apportionment, and after every defendant tried to blame everyone else in the world for their negligence, including a criminal, known or unknown, that myth was disproven. For example, in the Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia case, in which a young man was severely beaten by a gang at Six Flags, for no reason other than the gang (some of whom were Six Flags employees) wanted to beat someone up, the jury returned a verdict of $35 Million. The Cobb County jury attributed to the gang members a total of 8% of that $35 million verdict, and split between the four of them, it came out to 2% per gang member/roughly $750,000 each. This means that Six Flags had to pay the remaining 92% totaling roughly $32 million dollars in damages.

Jury Duty: The Heart of American Government

January 5, 2015 | Robin Frazer Clark

I recently had jury duty in DeKalb County, Georgia, where I have been a resident for 15 years. In 15 years, I have received a summons for jury duty two times. I have never served on an actual trial jury. This is the ironic curse of being a trial lawyer. Most likely, I will never serve on a trial jury although my job involves persuading trial juries to see a case my client’s way. I have been in many, many courts throughout the State of Georgia and I am proud to say as a DeKalb County resident there is no better court experience than DeKalb County, from the deputies who check you through the metal detector, to the jury clerks who handle hundreds of jurors every day, to the courtroom staff of the trial judges, to the judges themselves. It is an extremely pleasant experience and trust me, I have been in many Georgia courthouses where that simply cannot be said.

I believe jury duty is the Heart of American Government. A trial jury is the smallest form of self-government ever conceived. Government by the People for the People, right? Trial by jury was so important to our nation’s Forefathers they enshrined it in the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Said President John Adams about trial by jury: “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.” So with that attitude, I proudly stepped into the DeKalb County Courthouse, with jury summons in hand, not in my usual role as trial lawyer, but in the very important role as potential juror. Awesome! I can’t wait!

I went through the process of jury selection, called Voir Dire in law school and never called that again by me. It sounds too pretentious, doesn’t it? And jury “selection” is a misnomer…it is actually jury “deselection.” Trial Lawyers don’t get to look at the jury venire (another pretentious word for the jurors from whom the trial jury will be struck) and pick who looks best to them. It is the opposite of that. Trial lawyers get (usually) six peremptory strikes to take off the jurors who seem like they would be horrible jurors for their side of the case, for one reason or another. Each side of the trial strikes six jurors and whoever is left is your trial jury who will decide the case. Again, ironically, the jurors who end up deciding the case are usually the jurors you know the least about. They have often never even responded to any of your questions in “jury selection” so there were no red flags in their personal history to make you concerned about how they would see your case given their preconceived notions or their obvious leanings toward one side or the other. There are also strikes the Court (i.e., the trial judge) exercises called “strikes for cause” where it has been demonstrated that a juror could not possibly be impartial because of something that has happened in their lives perhaps so similar to the case to be tried that they have already made up their minds how the case should come out. Or maybe they have such deep religious beliefs that they are forbidden by their particular Faith to judge another human being and so would be incompetent to sit in judgment of another person. I was thinking about jury selection this morning as I was reading about the trial that begins to today in the Boston Marathon bombing. Jury selection in that Federal trial is estimated to take months and the jury venire from which a trial jury of twelve will be struck will consist of 1,200 jurors! Where in the courtroom do they put 1,200 jurors?

Can a Victim of Medical Malpractice Get Justice in Georgia?

December 3, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

I have been thinking a lot about “justice” lately. I have just finished a week long medical malpractice trial in DeKalb County in which I did not think justice was served for the family who lost their loved one (more on that in a minute) although I don’t criticize the jury in any way. That alone is probably a difficult concept for lay persons to accept, but it is the truth for trial lawyers. I also can’t remember a time when the word “justice” has been thrown out more in the media, in social media, in sermons and in everyday conversations than it has in the last few weeks due to the events in Ferguson, MO. That is extraordinary for the United States, a nation founded upon the very principles of justice. Try Googling “was justice served” and you’ll get a myriad (actually 1,920,000 ) of opinions regarding the Ferguson shooting, with about half of the articles responding in the affirmative and about half responding in the negative. Maybe this rough split of 50/50 is proof in and of itself that the justice system usually gets it right.

I was also skimming through a book titled “Justice” recently which noted that most Americans don’t take any oath to support and uphold the Constitution or even the laws of the state in which they reside. I find that interesting because I have done so several times, first when I was sworn in to practice law in the state courts of Georgia, then when I was sworn in the Georgia Court of Appeals, then when I was sworn in the Georgia Supreme Court, then when I was sworn in in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, then when I was sworn in to the United States Supreme Court, and then as an officer of the State Bar of Georgia and then, most recently, when I took the office of President of the State Bar of Georgia. That’s a lot of swearing!! But each time (at least 7, maybe more) I swore I would protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the laws of the State of Georgia, “so help me God.” I take that oath as seriously as any single person has ever taken it. Part of that sacred oath is to protect and defend our justice system, criminal and civil. You will never hear me criticizing our justice system. There may be some things wrong with it, but it is still the greatest system ever devised by man for self-government. As Winston Churchill said about Democracy: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”

I say all of the above because after 27 years of practicing law in Georgia, I am on the verge of concluding that a victim of medical malpractice in this state cannot obtain justice. Jurors here in Georgia will look for the smallest shred of doubt, will do almost anything, not to hold a physician liable for his negligence. I can’t pinpoint one cause…there are probably many. TV advertisers must shoulder a lot of the blame. I am not a TV advertiser. I am an actual trial lawyer. When I stand in front of a jury to begin jury selection, those jurors are already suspicious of me because they know only of personal injury lawyers who advertise on TV with silly slogans or theme music, or has-been actors touting the lawyer’s legal acumen. Although I have never advertised on TV or anywhere for that matter, I am lumped in with those who do because I am a personal injury lawyer. I am guilty by association.

One More Step Toward Justice: Georgia Appellate Ruling Ensures Jury Trial in Road Design Case

November 14, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

I have written before about my case against the Georgia Department of Transportation and the City of Atlanta about a defective median installed in the middle of the City of Atlanta’s busiest street, Peachtree Street, in the heart of Buckhead at the intersection of Peachtree Street and Piedmont Road. This intersection may well be one of the busiest intersections in Buckhead, the city’s premiere retail, hotel and financial district. This median was installed in October 2007 and was opened for the motoring public without sufficient warning signage and without sufficient lighting. My clients’ daughter was killed in 2008 in a single car accident when the driver of her car hit the median, because it was not readily visible and was not appropriately marked. We filed suit in back in 2010 and are still fighting four years later. Various appeals have lengthened the litigation. We continue to fight. On November 12, 2014, we received a wonderful opinion from the Georgia Court of Appeals that will allow us to proceed with a jury trial against the City of Atlanta. Below if the opinion. We had already received a similar opinion regarding our claims of negligence against the Georgia Department of Transportation. This puts us one more step toward justice for the family.

Robin Frazer Clark pursues justice for those who have personal injury claims as a result of being injured in motor vehicle wrecks, trucking wrecks, defective products, defective maintenance of roads, premises safety, medical malpractice and other incidents caused by the negligence of others. Ms. Clark is the 50^th President of the State Bar of Georgia and a Past President of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and has practiced law in Georgia for 26 years. Mrs. Clark is listed as one of the Top 50 Women Trial Lawyers in Georgia and is a Georgia Super Lawyer. Robin Frazer Clark~Dedicated to the Constitution’s Promise of Justice for All.

Do You Know What’s In Your Drain Opener?

October 27, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

I am working on a products liability case today that I have pending in Cobb County, Georgia in which my client was severely burned by a sulfuric acid drain opener (SADO). “Burn” may not be the accurate term…it is more like she had her skin dissolved by the sulfuric acid drain opener. She has been treated in three burn units and has undergone nine surgeries, including numerous skin grafts and fractional laser procedures. Yet she still has permanent scars over much of her body.

Do you know what’s in the drain opener you have under your sink right now? Have you ever used a Sulfuric Acid Drain Opener? My guess is you have no idea whether you have ever used a sulfuric acid drain opener. SADO’s, as they are known in the chemical industry, are arguably too hazardous to sell to the public for use by the average consumer. And the average consumer has no idea just how ultra hazardous they are. SADO’s are often pure sulfuric acid, which nothing much added to them except water. They are typically “professional strength” and really should only be sold to professionals. Some manufacturers of SADO’s don’t even employ chemists to create their formula nor was their chemical formula originally created by an actual chemist. This makes the product extraordinarily dangerous to consumers as no professional chemist has even verified what is in the formula so the manufacturer really has no idea of exactly what they are selling.

In many cases, the label on SADO’s are not adequate to warn a lay user sufficiently about the type of chemical burns they can cause if they come in contact with a person’s skin or body. Keep in mind that in many third world countries SADO’s are used as a weapon, often in domestic violence incidents in which men throw sulfuric acid onto women’s faces to disfigure them permanently. This is the same strength sulfuric acid that is being sold to consumers as a SADO. For many years a group of concerned chemists have tried to get the sale of sulfuric acid drain openers banned in the United States. These concerned chemists have petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission numerous times to try to get the Commission to take action to ban SADO’s because they are simply too hazardous for use by the average homeowner. But, apparently, politics always seems to get in the way and nothing happens. Manufacturers keep making money and uninformed consumers keep getting harmed.

“I Could Have Been Killed!” Do I Have a Case?

September 19, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

I have handled hundreds and hundreds of car wreck cases in Georgia. Very often I hear this common theme from prospective clients: “I Could Have Been Killed!” And it is often very true…they could have been killed, but thankfully, they weren’t. So do you have a case when you could have been killed but you weren’t? Or better put, do you have a case when you could have been killed but you weren’t physically harmed at all?

I thought of this because this morning while perusing the headlines I came upon this story about a JetBlue plane that experienced a blown engine and made an emergency landing. Smoke filled the cabin, oxygen masks magically came down, and flight attendants yelled “Brace! Brace! Brace!” as they landed, which fortunately, they did so safely without injury. Watch the video and you will see that many people on board thought they were about to die. And, in fact, they had a long time to think that as the plane, which was over water, had to turn around and go back to California to land. They all could have been killed, but they weren’t.

Therein lies the conundrum.

Can I Sue the County?

September 9, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

Let’s say you have been injured in a car wreck because of negligent maintenance of a right of way owned by the County. Can you sue the County for your injuries?

Of course, I have tried to teach my readers the short answer is always yes, you can sue anybody for anything. The real question then is if you sue the County, will your lawsuit be successful? The answer there, unfortunately, is probably not.

Counties in Georgia enjoy wide immunity from being held accountable through lawsuits. This is called “‘sovereign immunity,” which simply means you can’t sue the King. Were your car wreck to have occurred on a State-owned right-of-way, maintained by the State of Georgia, you would have a viable lawsuit against the State of Georgia under a statute known as “The Georgia Tort Claims Act,” O.C.G.A. Section 50-21-20 through -37. The State of Georgia, in passing “The Georgia Tort Claims Act,” recognized the inequity of a situation that would allow a Georgia citizen to be able to sue and recover from a private individual or corporation if they were negligent but not from the State of Georgia if it, acting through its employees, were negligent. The trade-off agreed in the statute for doing away with sovereign immunity for the State is an individual employee may not be personally sued (so it protects State of Georgia employees from litigation) and recovery is capped (regardless of injury) at $1 Million. This seems like an inherently reasonable trade-off…good for all citizens of the State of Georgia.

If We Go To Trial, Who Will Decide My Case?

August 11, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

Today I read a funny article about a jury trial in Florida in which the jury sent the trial judge a note asking for a whiteboard and markers and a “big bottle of wine.” I thought that was pretty cute.

Going to trial is a big decision. Although I have tried many, many trials in many counties in Georgia, most of my clients have never been involved in any trial and the trial of their personal injury case will be the one and only time they will ever step foot in a courtroom and the one and only time the case will be about them. You can imagine this might produce some anxiety.

One of the questions often asked is, if we go to trial, who will decide my case? The answer to that question for all of the cases I try is the jury. I try only jury trials. If a judge decides your case, which can happen in Georgia if no one requests a jury trial (very rare in personal injury cases ) or if both parties consent, it is called a Bench Trial. You may be familiar with the trial of Oscar Pistorius going on right now in South Africa. Mr. Pistorius is being tried for murder in the death of his girlfriend. In South Africa, such a trial will be decided by the very judge who is presiding over the case. Just recently it was announced that the judge will render a verdict in that case on September 11, 2014.