Atlanta Injury Attorney Blog

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.

It’s common sense that a vehicle stopped in a road, whether it be an interstate or surface street can present a major hazard and result in death and injury. In 2014 in GRANGER et al. v. MST TRANSPORTATION, LLC et al 329 Ga. App. 268 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014), the Georgia Court of Appeals tackled this issue where a tractor trailer ran out of gas in the rightmost of three lanes and allegedly put out their safety triangles while they went for gas.

The Plaintiff came along in the next lane over and was struck from behind by a third vehicle and knocked into the lane with the tractor only 40 feet away. They were unable to avoid slamming into the back of the stalled out trailer. They filed suit against the trucking company (likely after settling out with the insurance for the car to the rear.)

The defense team for the trucking company filed a motion for summary judgment with the trial court, arguing that it was all the fault of the driver who hit her from behind and that their being stopped in the road did not make them responsible when it all started with someone else’s negligence. The trial court agreed and threw the case out, but the Court of Appeals wisely stepped in and said “no, its always going to be foreseeable that when you stop your vehicle in the lane of travel, people may run into it whether through their own negligence or that of others.” The sent the case back down to be tried on all issues including what percent fault the truck had versus the fault of the car that knocked the plaintiff into the truck.