Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog

The Value of Life

April 20, 2012 | Robin Frazer Clark

In a few days I will be asking a Fulton County, Georgia jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the full value of the life of a young man who was 31 years old when he died, a husband and a father of two young sons. What the value of life is is a subject I contemplate often, given the fact that I find myself trying so many wrongful death cases in Georgia these days as a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer.

Interestingly, in Georgia, the jury is to view the value of life from the decedent’s eyes, not from their own and not from loved one’s. We typically show that by having friends and family come into court and testify about what the decedent enjoyed doing, how he spent time with his friends and family, his Faith, his priorities in life, his values, his moral character, his love. In Georgia, we have the Wrongful Death Act, “§ 51-4-2. Homicide of spouse or parent; survival of action,” in which the negligent death of a person is called an “homicide.” The surviving spouse is allowed to bring the cause of action and if there is no surviving spouse, the decedent’s children bring it and if there are no children, the decedent’s parents bring it and if there are no parents an appointed administrator brings it. Under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 51-4-1, the “full value of the life” is defined as follows: “Full value of the life of the decedent, as shown by the evidence” means the full value of the life of the decedent without deducting for any of the necessary or personal expenses of the decedent had he lived.

And therein lies the conundrum…because really, isn’t a life priceless? If you Google “value of life” there are plenty of ideas on what that means, but very little on what’s it’s worth. There is even a Wikipedia entry on “value of life.” This is what Georgia juries must do in every courthouse in the State of Georgia on a weekly or at least monthly basis…determine the value of someone’s life in real money, not terms of art. And we plaintiffs’ attorneys trust that juries make the right decisions. We know juries take their solemn oath seriously and work hard to do justice and impartially find the right outcome. We cannot, as citizens, ask for more.

Georgia Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention and Seminar, May 10-11, 2012

April 14, 2012 | Robin Frazer Clark

On May 10-11 I’ll be at the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA) Annual Seminar and Convention held at the Loews Hotel in Midtown Atlanta. This is ground zero for the best trial lawyers in the State of Georgia. I am speaking on the power of cognitive neuroscience use at trial. I will also be introducing our Thursday luncheon speaker, Professor Curtis Wilkie, author of Fall of the House of Zeus, about the rise and fall of Dickie Scruggs who was once, arguably, the most powerful trial lawyer in the world but who is now serving time in prison. I will also be introducing our Friday luncheon speaker, Dr. Paul Voss, Founder of Ethikos, Inc. who will speaking about the ethics of decision making.

I always enjoy the fellowship of my fellow Georgia Trial Lawyers and find simply being with them inspires me to continue to fight the good fight, finish the race and keep the Faith.

Txt U L8r: Distracted Driving Continues to Cause Wrecks and Injuries

April 5, 2012 | Robin Frazer Clark

Despite attempts by numerous State Legislatures, including the Georgia General Assembly, to reduce distracted driving by making it illegal and imposing heavy fines on those who violate those laws, distracted driving continues to cause wrecks and personal injuries. The Georgia Legislature made illegal texting while driving (TWD) and yet I personally observe many Georgia drivers still holding their phones or Blackberries at the top of their steering wheels texting while driving, often at high rates of speed, on Ga. 400, the Downtown Connector, I-75 and I-85. It is infuriating.

A study by Virginia Tech Driving Institute revealed that those who resort to texting while driving are 23 times more likely to meet with an accident. A comparative study of texting while driving versus drunk driving statistics published in a leading car magazine in the United States revealed that texting while driving is even more dangerous than drunk driving. Studies reveal that a person who is texting while driving at the speed of 35 mph will cover 25 feet before bringing the car to a complete halt as compared to a distance of 4 feet which a drunk driver would cover at the same speed. According to the texting while driving death statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 5,870 people died in car crashes in 2008 alone. The same statistics revealed that 515,000 people were injured in various car crashes in the United States. Around 28 percent of all crashes in 2008 were caused by drivers in the age group of 18 and 29, who admitted to texting while driving. The popular belief, that the number of teenagers texting while driving is more as compared to adults, got a major blow when the texting while driving statistics 2010 compiled by Pew Research Center revealed that 47 percent of the adults resort to texting as compared to 34 percent of the teenagers. The same stats revealed that 75 percent of the adults resort to phone conversation while driving as compared to 52 percent of the teenagers.

There are numerous tools a driver has at his or her disposal now to prevent distracted driving. One such tool is an application you download on your phone that reads an incoming text to you, either on your phone’s speaker or your bluetooth device. For example, I have downloaded on my Blackberry an app called “Txt U L8r.” It is a free app created by Car and Driver and Chrysler that reads any incoming text to you while you are driving. I use a Bluetooth hands free device while driving and so this app reads an incoming text to me through my Bluetooth device. The app turns on automatically whenever I turn on my Bluetooth. I have to listen to a brief advertisement first that simply says “This message is brought to you by Chrysler” and then a nice voice reads the text. Then that same app sends an automatic reply text that reads: “I heard your message read by the Car and Driver Txt U L8r app and will get back to you when I’m done driving. Drive Safely. Sponsored by Chrysler.” I have received many compliments about using this app. Every time a friend of mine receives it in response to a text they send me, it sets a good example and makes folks think about what they are doing to eliminate distracted driving.

Wrongful Death DUI Civil Suit Settled

March 16, 2012 | Robin Frazer Clark

As a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia who handles a great deal of wrongful death lawsuits from car wrecks and various motor vehicle accidents, I have been watching with interest the coverage of the wrongful death case in Florida involving millionaire John Goodman. Mr. Goodman is currently on trial for DUI manslaughter in which it is alleged he caused the death of another individual in a car wreck while driving drunk. Mr. Goodman, not surprisingly, denies the charges.

Mr. Goodman has well known and highly skilled trial counsel, Roy Black, who represents the wealthiest of the wealthiest Americans when they find themselves in trouble. Mr. Black is presenting a very creative, unique defense, i.e., that Mr. Goodman got drunk AFTER the wreck and was not drunk when the wreck happened and that something malfunctioned with Mr. Goodwin’s Bentley, a very expensive car, causing it to accelerate uncontrollably.

News comes out today that a civil suit against Mr. Goodman by the family of the decedent has settled. This is good for the family of the decedent. It gives them a little sense of closure, to the extent that can ever be had, and gives them a sense of justice, hopefully. In our Civil Justice System, the only justice that can be had by someone wronged is money damages, and there should be no apology made for that, because a jury can not bring a loved one back to life. All a jury can do is to make the wrongdoer pay money damages for justice.

Magnet Toys Are Extremely Dangerous for Children

March 6, 2012 | Robin Frazer Clark

I saw today that a child survived swallowing 37 magnets, so powerful they had twisted and blocked her intestines. These were Buckyballs, which the company says are toys for adults, not children. I doubt children know they are for adults, only. They certainly look like toys that children would want to play with. Even though the company says they are not “toys,” some of these magnets were recalled last year for failure to comply with Federal toy standards.

There simply is no legitimate reason for magnets so strong that they can twist and bind a person’s intestines. These are inherently dangerous around toddlers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that 22 incidents involving magnets and children from June 2009 to October 2011, with 11 of those requiring surgery to remove the magnets. This includes the Magnetix brand of toys, which has caused the death of many children who have swallowed the magnets. After it became known that Magnetix magnets were killing many children, the manufacturer, Mega Brands, decided to include a warning on the package that stated: “Caution: do not ingest or inhale magnets. Attraction of magnets in the body may cause serious injury and require immediate medical care.” Does this go far enough? Or does it just touch the surface?

The Consumer Products Safety Commission, cpsc.org, has been warning us for years now about the hazards of magnets, how easily they can be swallowed by a child, and how quickly and irretrievably they can cause such severe damage when ingested. I have mentioned the CPSC before, but it is a good idea to check their website, cpsc.org, on a regular basis to learn about new recalls of dangerous products. Another good source of information on dangerous toys is the Kennan Kids Foundation, created by my good friend, Don Keenan, a fellow trial lawyer here in Atlanta. The Keenan Kids Foundation keeps abreast of hazardous toys available in America and alerts parents to their dangers. It is a very helpful website of up-to-date information about what is a safe toy and what it not.

Traffic “Calmers” Can Prove Deadly

February 2, 2012 | Robin Frazer Clark

trafficcalmer%231.jpg

Yesterday was a bad rush hour in Atlanta, with constant rain and poor visibility. Already bad traffic was made worse by the rain. It presented the right conditions for lots of car wrecks. I was heading home a little early but it was still just dusk…still enough light for street lights not to be on, but dark enough to present a real hazard to the Atlanta motoring public, especially with the rain. A driver directly in front of me on East Rock Springs Road in Atlanta, without any warning or explanation, ran right over a traffic calmer that looked similar to the one in the photo above. But this one was not exactly the same, because it didn’t have the proper markings or signage as the one above does. This driver ran right on top of the calmer, flattening three of his tires, knocking various things off his car and causing sparks to fly in the air. He couldn’t have been going faster than 30 m.p.h., because that’s how fast I was going and I was right behind him. That touch up with the “traffic calmer” undoubtedly cost that young man a lot of money in repairs to his car. Not much of a “calmer” to him! Fortunately, he didn’t seem to be injured.

There is a manual that all road engineers and departments of transportation, including the Georgia Department of Transportation, must follow when installing these obstacles in the middle of a perfectly good street. It is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, known as the MUTCD, and it mandates that traffic calmers must have sufficient markings and signage to warn drivers of its existence. The fact that this unsuspecting driver yesterday drove right on top of the thing suggests this one was not properly marked. There are many ways to mark a traffice calmer to warn drivers, including reflectorized tape around the curb, or even delineator posts, as shown below.

trafficcalmer%232.jpg

This accident yesterday I saw harmed only the car, but it is not difficult to understand how these “calmers’ can do the exact opposite of what is intended and actually cause harm to a driver. These things are seemingly being installed everywhere these days. New ones have just been installed on 14th Street and Peachtree Street in Midtown between 14th and 15th. I have to try to avoid running over them every day. One particularly hazardous “calmer” is found on Peachtree Street in Buckhead near its intersection with Piedmont Road. It proved deadly when it lacked any lighting, lacked any reflectorized tape or paint, lacked any delineator posts and had no signage. Drivers at that time didn’t stand a chance against it.

Is Georgia State Trooper Liable for the Car Wreck He Causes?

January 17, 2012 | Robin Frazer Clark

In the wake of the tragic New Year’s Eve car wreck that killed Kathy Porter, the wife of Atlanta Braves trainer, Jeff Porter, many lay folks have asked me, since my practice in Atlanta is exclusively plaintiff’s personal injury, whether the Georgia State Patrol or the individual Georgia State Trooper would be liable for causing this wreck. There seems to be absolutely no dispute the Georgia State Trooper was at fault in causing this wreck. http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/witness-gives-account-of-1283677.html The question arises, however, whether the State of Georgia would be liable for the State Trooper’s recklessness? Or would the State of Georgia be able to avoid liability by asserting the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, which allows the State in some instances to avoid civil liability completely?

The Georgia State Tort Claims Act (GTCA) allows injured individuals to hold the State of Georgia responsible for their injuries caused by the negligence or carelessness of State actors/employees in limited scenarios. First, the injured party must give the State of Georgia and the agency involved “ante litem notice,” or notice of the intent to bring a claim against the State, within 12 months of the negligent act or incident. Then the negligent act must fit squarely within the types of act for which the GTCA allows liiability; there are many exceptions in the statute itself.

And there are some trade-offs for even being able to bring suit against the State of Georgia. For example, one such trade-off is that the State’s liability for anything, no matter how egregious the conduct, is limited to $1 Million dollars. That means in any case in which a State employee’s negligence results in the death of another human being, the most the family of the decedent can recover is $1 Million dollars. And surely we can all agree that the value of the life of anyone is greater than a mere $1 Million dollars. Another such trade-off is the State of Georgia can never be punished by punitive damages, regardless of how unconscionable the subject incident was. For example, in the Kathy Porter case, there is evidence that this particular State Trooper had caused four prior wrecks. If we were talking about a private corporation’s employee who had caused four prior wrecks and killed someone in his fifth, a jury could decide to punish that corporation for continuing to employ that reckless employee by awarding punitive damages against the employer. Not so against the State of Georgia.

Abandoned Property Is Often An Invitation to Crime

December 9, 2011 | Robin Frazer Clark

Just hours after I blogged about the killing of little Jorelys Rivera, we all learned that the perpetrator was an employee of the apartment complex where Jorelys lived. The horrible crime occurred in a vacant apartment that perpetrator knew was vacant and had easy access to, especially since he was the apartment’s maintenance man. Before I knew any of this, I had already suggested that whoever had done this horrific deed had access to the vacant apartment and knew it was vacant, essentially giving the perpetrator the perfect placd to committ his crime. How did I know before the GBI ever disclosed these facts to the public? Because this is a fact pattern that often repeats itself and as a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer in Atlanta, I see this in the civil premises safety cases I bring for clients.

Now I read in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution online today a story about another hideous crime, this time the rape of two women. I have often represented such crime victims in civil personal injury lawsuits here in Fulton County, Georgia, against the negligent property owners. Property owners, especially commercial property owners like the apartment complex where Jorelys was killed, know that vacant, abandonded property is a haven for crime. These property owners have a duty to eliminate that risk, to use ordinary care to keep the premises safe. These owners cannot claim they had no idea that a unforseen criminal attack would occur on their property, because they absolutely know if they have vacant property that a criminal can easily gain access to, they are essentially aiding and abetting the crime by furnishing the scene of the crime. This is what happened in these two rapes in Atlanta today and this is what happened in the death of Jorelys Rivera. And with so many homes in Atlanta and in Georgia under Foreclosure now, the problem of anbandoned property is growing.

Apartment Complex May Have Civil Liability in Abduction of Seven Year Old Canton Girl

December 6, 2011 | Robin Frazer Clark

The news this week of the tragedy of the death of seven year old Jorelys Rivera was horrifying. Little Jorelys Rivera had been playing on the playground at her apartment complex, River Ridge, in Canton, Georgia, told friends she was going back to her apartment to get a drink, and never returned. Her little body was found in a nearby garbage dumpster yesterday. There was evidence that Jorelys’ abducter had sexually abused her and stabbed her.

Investigators with Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) now report they found blood in a vacant apartment in the River Ridge Complex. This is crucial evidence, as it perhaps not only indicates the exact place of the death, but also implicates liability on the apartment complex for having a vacant apartment that was accessible to anyone, including Jorelys’ abducter. Further, it indicates her abducter may have known in advance of the vacancy of the apartment and his easy ability to enter it without a key and without any apparent force. Additionally, the playgound from which she was abducted was owned by River Ridge.

Under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. Section 51-3-1, a landowner has a nondelegable duty to keep its premises and approaches safe. This means they can’t pawn this duty off on someone else. Property owners are under a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from dangers which are foreseeable from arrangement and use of premises. In this context, any renter and any family member of the named renter living in the rented apartment would be considered an “invitee” for these purposes, to whom the landlord owes the highest duty of care, that of “reasonable care.” Thus, from the mere fact that this child’s abducter ostensibly knew of this vacant apartment and knew that he had unfettered access to it away from witnesses indicates to me that the landlord must not have exercised “reasonable care” to keep the premises safe so as not to allow a vacant apartment be used for criminal purposes. Landlords must be trained to be diligent in blocking access to vacant apartments or vacant buildings, as statistics show that criminal abducters are more likely to abduct someone if they know in advance they have access to a place to take their victim.

Talking on Phone While Driving Distracts Georgia Driver, Kills Two Teenagers

August 26, 2011 | Robin Frazer Clark

I often represent the familes who have lost loved ones in car wrecks on Metro Atlanta roads. It is always a painful time as they share with me the details of their loved one’s death. Last night’s killing of two teenagers by a distracted driver must be one of the worst things these two families have ever gone through and my heart goes out to them. Last night two teenagers were killed while walking in the emergency lane of Georgia Highway 138 in Stockbridge, Clayton County, Georgia. A third teen was struck in the same collision and remains hospitalized in critical condition.

We all know by now that texting while driving (TWD) is illegal. But there is strong evidence that simply talking on a cell phone while driving is just as distracting. In the Clayton County collision last night, the at-fault driver apparently was arguing with her husband on the phone. This argument or “conversation” was distracting enough to cause her to leave the laned highway, go into the emergency lane and strike three pedestrians, hard enough to kill two and seriously injure one. What in the world is going on here in Georgia with distracted driving? This is a problem that should worry us all, whether we’re in another car or pedestrians.

The hitting of pedestrians in Atlanta and Georgia has become all too commonplace. Just two weeks ago a man was sentenced to 20 years in prison for vehicular homocide in striking and killing a pedestrian in Carroll County, Georgia. Earlier this month a Georgian citizen who was a pedestrian was struck and killed by a car on Savannah Highway. Most of us have heard about the mother in Cobb County whose child was struck and killed as a pedestrian crossing busy Austell Road and the Cobb County District Attorney proscecuted the mother for vehicular homocide, even though she and her children were pedestrians.