Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog

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.

Can a Jury Believe What It Sees?

July 25, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

Can a jury believe what it sees? That may seem like a stupid question, but a new study confirms it’s not. G. Daniel Lassiter, Ph.D., of Ohio University, recently conducted a series of experiments using focus groups and videotapes of criminal interrogations. Mock juries were shown exactly the same interrogation, but some saw only the defendant, while others had a wider-angle view that included the interrogator. When the interrogator isn’t shown on camera, jurors are significantly less likely to find an interrogation coercive, and more likely to believe in the truth and accuracy of the confession that they hear — even when the interrogator explicitly threatens the defendant.

Professor Lassiter and other psychologists have consistently shown this “camera perspective bias” across a substantial series of experiments, finding in one study that even professionals like judges and police interrogators are not immune.

Along the same lines we are definitely aware that people confess to crimes they did not commit. This has been proven scientifically time after time. But why?

Is State Farm Really Like a Good Neighbor? Who Does My Insurance Agent Really Work For?

July 8, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

Do I have a case against my insurance agent? I feel like my insurance adjuster cared more for the insurance company than for me, her client. Who does my insurance agent really work for? Me or the insurance Company?

Good question! No doubt many of us think our insurance agent, with whom we have worked with, confided in and trusted, is our friend and our agent, not the insurance company. But as I often say in these blogs: Not so fast! Although the term “agent” is loosely thrown around in all sorts of scenarios, the actual word “agent” is loaded with ambiguity. Natch, if I have purchased my car and homeowners insurance through my “agent” I would assume that person works for me and would always have my best interests in mind. But, unfortunately, especially under Georgia Law, it doesn’t always operate so smoothly.

For example, if an insurance “agent” is independent and sells policies for multiple insurance companies, chances are he or she would be considered an “agent” of the insured who must favor the insured’s interests over the company’s. If, however, the insurance “agent” is an employee of the insurance company and not independent, then chances are this type of insurance “agent” is actually an agent of the company, not of you, and that type of “agent”/employee would put the interests of the insurance carrier over your own.

Do I Have a Case?

June 24, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

Do I have a case? I am asked this countless times…at church, over cocktails, in the gym…anywhere where someone who knows I am a trial lawyer who represents injured individuals finds me and grabs me to ask. Do I have a case? Four little words, but so very complex.

In the world of personal injury law practice, I am a generalist. I take all variety of personal injury cases. The only limitation for me is whether I think I can prove the case and whether the damages justify my representation. So “Do I have a case” depends on many things, but first is can we prove one? The plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit has the burden of proof, meaning the plaintiff must prove the case and the defendant really has no burden. The plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, four things: 1)duty; and 2) breach of duty; and 3) causation and 4) damages. “Preponderance of the evidence” is a cute little phrase that means nothing more than it is more likely than not. “Preponderance” is used in law school and should never be used again anywhere else, but especially not in a courtroom to a jury. The burden of proof simply means that a jury agrees it is more likely than not that this thing happened. And the plaintiff must prove all four necessary elements; three out of four is not good enough.

Sometimes determining whether someone owed you a duty not to injure you is simple. Like in a car wreck case in which you have been rear-ended. Every driver on our Georgia roads owes every other driver on our roads a duty not to follow too closely and not to rear-end the car in front of them. So if you have been rear-ended in a car wreck, you can easily prove #1 and #2, duty and breach. In our car wreck case example, it is #3 and #4 that get a little harder. Damages means you have an injury to which you attribute to the car wreck. Damages are simple enough usually…if you suffered a broken leg in a car wreck, a leg which was perfectly fine before the car wreck, you have both damages and causation, meaning you can prove the broken leg was caused by the wreck and not from something else, not from some other force. If however, you believe you have injured your back or neck in a rear-end car wreck but no broken bones, the task of proving causation, that the force of the car wreck caused the neck or back injury and nothing else, gets a bit harder. Factors involved here on whether you can prove causation include your past medical history and whether you had ever been treated for neck or back problems before the wreck. For example, let’s say you were involved in our rear-end car wreck on the way to the hospital for back surgery for a chronic back problem. It would be pretty difficult to prove the car wreck caused you to have a back injury that now needs surgical treatment. You were already on your way to get that surgical treatment before the wreck ever occurred! See how this works? Those are the tougher cases and they often come down to expert testimony from your treating physicians about what they believe caused your back injury.

Can I Sue the County?

June 12, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

I am asked this question a lot: “Can I sue ______?” The short answer is always yes, you can sue anybody. The real question is “If I sue _____, will I win?” Because although you can file a lawsuit against anybody for practically anything, what matters is whether you would win the case, whether that type of cause of action is viable under Georgia Law, or whether that type of case would be thrown out long before you ever saw a jury. As a plaintiff’s personal injury trial lawyer, I must take and pursue cases for clients that only have a very high chance of success. My fee is entirely contingency based, meaning I don’t get paid, regardless of how much time and effort (blood, sweat and tears) I put into your case unless I win the case. Period. So when I hear these ridiculous claims that trial lawyers file “frivolous” lawsuits I get furious, because good trial lawyer could not possibly afford to file “frivolous” lawsuits. A lawyer who files “frivolous” lawsuits won’t be in business very long.

So today I am addressing the pretty often-asked question of whether I can sue the County. Let’s say the County, or a County employee, has harmed or physically injured you in some way and you want to sue them for money damages. Piece of cake, right? Not… so… fast!

Unlike the State and unlike most cities (municipalities) in Georgia, a Georgia County enjoys wide sovereign immunity. The State of Georgia has waived its sovereign immunity for personal injury claims by creating the Georgia Tort Claims Act. There are a million hoops you must go through under the GTCA first to be able to sue the state, but if you know how to go through those hoops and go through them all just the right way, you may have a successful personal injury claim against the State of Georgia. The same is true for cities in Georgia, although they fall under a different state statute that allows them to be sued for negligence. But no so for the counties. Which begs the question: Why are counties so unique?

Did You Think He Was Guilty, Too? The Lesson from the Jim Donnan Trial

May 27, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

The recent jury verdict in the Coach Jim Donnan trial surprised me. I thought the jury would find him guilty. That’s because, unlike the jury, I never heard all of the evidence admitted in court. All I heard was the media’s spin on things, which led me, without a doubt in my mind, to believe the jury would convict him.

Not so fast.

Remember innocent until proven guilty? Well, the State of Georgia just never made it that far in this trial. The jury foreman said:

Would You Be Upset If Your Home Were Wrongfully Foreclosed Upon?

May 13, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

The easy answer to the question I pose above is an emphatic “Yes!” Right? For any homeowner to have his or her home wrongfully foreclosed upon and scheduled to be sold at auction on the Courthouse steps, as we still do here in Georgia through nonjudicial forclosures ( a topic which deserves it’s own blog), would create enormous, undue emotional stress. Your home is, more than likely, the largest purchase you have ever made and has the highest financial investment value of anything you have ever personally invested in. We call our home our “castle.” So when a corporation wrongfully forecloses on your castle, your home, trying to sell the house right out from under your homeowning feet, don’t you think this would just naturally cause you some undue stress? Worrying whether you would lose your house? Lose your biggest investment? Lose the roof over your and your family’s heads? Should whoever did so wrongfully foreclose on your house have to face justice in the form of a jury?

One would thing so, but when it comes to our ever-increasing conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer, unfortunately, seems to be “not so fast.” In a recent 11th Circuit opinion, the Court held although a person in such a position of being wrongfully foreclosed upon may very well have a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the amount of proof one must offer just to get past the judge and get to a jury may be impossible to meet, thus ending the homeowner’s ability to seek redress for the wrong. In Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corp., et. al, issued on May 8, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit (of which Georgia is a part) held that the plaintiffs, the Lodges, had not offered enough “proof” of emotional distress suffered by them at the thought of their home being wrongfully foreclosed upon. The Lodges, at the time, were in bankruptcy. Federal bankruptcy laws forbid foreclosure upon a home that is in bankruptcy. The Defendants in Lodge willfully violated this law, known as the “Bankruptcy stay” and moved to foreclose upon the Lodges home, even though that was the very reason the Lodges had filed for bankruptcy.

The Court found against the Lodges, denying them the right to have a jury decide their case. The Court said the Lodges hadn’t offered the Court enough proof of emotional distress. But whether there is sufficient proof of a claim should be a question to be decided by a jury, not three appellate judges. As the attorney for the Lodges, Ralph Goldberg, noted in response to this narrow opinion, “I don’t understand why anybody would not think that…hearing that your house is about to be foreclosed upon is significant emotion distress. It seems to me they’re out of touch with how normal people lead their lives.”