Atlanta Injury Attorney Blog

Title: When the Heat Kills: The Legal Challenge of Linking Individual Deaths to Climate Change Hazards

In a groundbreaking legal development, a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Misti Leon against seven major oil and gas companies could reshape the way the legal system approaches climate change liability—particularly in cases where the cause of death, like extreme heat, is not easily attributable to a single action or entity. This case is the first of its kind to link an individual’s death directly to the effects of man-made climate change, raising profound legal implications for future tort litigation in environmental law.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the tragic death of Juliana Leon, a 65-year-old poet from Washington state who died of hyperthermia during the historic 2021 heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. Her body temperature was recorded at 110°F. The complaint alleges that the excessive heat, deemed “virtually impossible” without anthropogenic climate change, was a foreseeable consequence of decades of fossil fuel combustion, disinformation, and public deception orchestrated by the defendants: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and Olympic Pipeline Company.

In a scary decision, the Court of Appeals has ruled that if you let a defendant out on a Limited Liability Release and the take all available Uninsured Motorist Insurance, the Court can , on Motion, dismiss that Defendant which may destroy your venue anchor.

Understanding the Implications of Ferguson v. Spraggins: An Appellate Decision Analysis

In the recent case of Ferguson et al. v. Spraggins, the Georgia Court of Appeals tackled significant issues surrounding liability releases following a tragic automobile accident that resulted in the deaths of two women. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the released Defendant, Timothy Spraggins,Let’s explore the court’s reasoning and its implications for future cases involving liability releases, particularly under Georgia’s OCGA § 33-24-41.1.

Oral arguments were held in the Appeal filed by the City of Milton and ultimately the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the wrongful death of Josh Chang that came about as the result of the City turning a blind eye for 40 years to a 3 foot high stone obstacle in the right of way. Ultimately the Court of Appeals ruled in the Chang Family’s favor and the City has now appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. Meanwhile, interest on the $32 million dollar judgment accrues at over $10,000 a day.

Over the years a number of injured people have called in after tripping over chairs in restaurants. From a common sense perspective, these can be tough cases. One of the primary defenses is that the chair is obvious to anyone walking around and the restaurant can rightfully argue, they have to be there and you should know to walk around them. But….and the only thing that matters is what comes after the but. If the chair is of a design where it sticks out past the normal footprint of a chair, then it becomes a tripping hazard and there is a viable claim.

In the recent appellate case of Connell v. Golden Corral Corp., the Eleventh Circuit Court addressed significant legal principles surrounding summary judgment and premises liability. This decision is pivotal for both plaintiffs and defendants engaged in personal injury litigation where the client tripped on a chair.

Overview of Law in the Area

We just sent out a demand on a case involving a North Georgia winery where the risers, the up part of a stair, were all of varying heights and when our client walked down them for the first time, she lost her footing and fell, hitting her head on a table nearby.

The adjuster for the insurance company at first did not follow the legal argument, so I asked them to measure the risers and, sure enough, they were all in violation of Georgia Building Code. Stairs are supposed to all be of very close measurements so that the pedestrian can climb or descend in a rhythm.

The diagram below illustrates the requirements for stairs that establish the standard of care for static defect fall cases.

Amusement parks are a place where families and thrill-seekers alike can enjoy a day of fun and excitement. However, along with the thrills of amusement park rides comes the potential for accidents and injuries. In the unfortunate event that you or a loved one is injured on an amusement park ride, it is important to understand the legal liability that may come into play.

When it comes to amusement park ride legal liability, there are several key factors to consider. The first step in determining liability is to establish who is responsible for the accident. This can vary depending on the circumstances of the incident. For example, if the ride operator failed to properly secure a safety harness or if the ride was not properly maintained, the amusement park or ride operator may be held liable for any resulting injuries. Georgia has an entire code section governing the safety procedures that ride operators must stick to and they are the Rules and Regulations 120-3-27.

For example they contain requirements like:

In an August 2023 decision, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an important ruling clarifying when and how investigating police officers must meet certain evidentiary standards for expert testimony in civil cases arising from vehicle accidents. Under the old case law, Judges sort of gave police officers a hall pass and assumed they automatically qualified as experts in certain matters.

In Miller v. Golden Peanut Company, the relatives of a woman killed in a tractor-trailer collision sued the driver and the tractor trailer company. At trial, the judge allowed the investigating officer to provide expert opinions on the cause of the accident without analyzing whether his conclusions met the Daubert standard for reliability. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment, partially based on the officer’s opinions, and threw the case out of court. The plaintiff’s appealed the ruling and the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court, so it was on to the Supreme Court for justice.

On appeal, the central question was whether police officers are automatically considered experts based on their crash investigation training, or if the Federal standard for whether an expert is qualied as an expert, known as Daubert standards, still apply. After examining differences between lay and expert testimony, the Court concluded the officer was providing expert conclusions based on specialized knowledge and therefore should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other expert witness.