Source: http://bethunelawfirm.com/content/category/motor-vehicle-accident/index.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 20:47:38
Document Index: 258147099

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 51']

Motor Vehicle Accident Archives - Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog
Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accident	Published on: January 5, 2015	Law Office of Terrence R. Bethune Garners over $300,000 for Client in Recent Settlement
Published on: December 8, 2014	Court of Appeals Affirms in Favor of Plaintiff in Negligence Case Against City of Atlanta
Successfully asserting negligence claims against the State or a municipality can be a difficult task. However, success is possible. In a recent decision, City of Atlanta v. Kovalcik (PDF-embedded link), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment in a negligence suit brought against the City of Atlanta for its failure to maintain adequate lighting at a newly redesigned intersection where the daughter of the plaintiffs was involved in a fatal car accident.
The car accident at issue in this case occurred on a night in March 2008. However, the events leading to this accident began four years earlier. In February 2004, the Georgia Department of Transportation and the City of Atlanta entered into an agreement to undertake certain improvements, including a project to redesign a portion of Peachtree Road in Atlanta. In pertinent part, the agreement provided that the city would accomplish the design activities in accordance with Georgia Department of Transportation (“DOT”) guidelines and that the DOT would “review and has approval authority for all aspects of the Project provided however this review and approval does not relieve the City of its responsibilities under the terms of this agreement.” Pursuant to a separate agreement between the City of Atlanta and the Buckhead Community Improvement District (“BCID”), BCID retained URS Corporation to develop construction plans, including road design, signage, pavement markings, curbs, traffic signals, and landscaping. These plans were ultimately approved by the DOT. Following approval of the plans, the DOT awarded a construction contract to Infrasource Paving and Concrete Services and contracted with Parsons Brinkerhoff Shuh & Jernigan for other construction, engineering, and inspection services. Active construction on this project ended in October 2007, and a final inspection was performed in January 2008.
Posted in: Motor Vehicle Accident, Municipal Liability, Negligence and Wrongful death	Published on: December 8, 2014	Updated: December 23, 2014 7:07 pm
Published on: December 1, 2014	Court of Appeals Orders New Trial in Automobile Accident Property Damage Case
Generally, courts will rarely disturb the factual determinations and ultimate verdict provided by a jury. However, there do exist certain limited circumstances when the court can overturn a jury’s verdict. Among the grounds that exists for a trial court to overturn a jury verdict and order a new trial are the following: when the verdict is contrary to the evidence and principles of equity and justice, O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20; when the verdict is strongly against the weight of evidence, O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21; when there is an illegal admission or exclusion of evidence, O.C.G.A. § 5-5-22; when there is newly discovered evidence bearing on the verdict, O.C.G.A. § 5-5-23; and when there exist certain errors in instruction to the jury, O.C.G.A. § 5-5-24. In a recent decision, Morrison v. Kicklighter (PDF-embedded link), the Georgia Court of Appeals examined whether a trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial was proper in light of the evidence presented at trial and the verdict reached.
The Kicklighter litigation began with a simple accident, which involved the defendant in this action backing his vehicle into a parked truck owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued to recover for resulting property damage, including the cost of repairs, the diminished value of the truck, and the cost of a rental vehicle during the repairs. These losses were covered under a defendant’s motor vehicle liability insurance policy with State Farm Mutual, and the plaintiffs brought an independent action against State Farm for failing to make a good faith effort to adjust and settle their pre-trial demand for payment. In the original action, the defendant admitted to liability, so the jury trial was only necessary to settle the property damage costs, which the defendant did not dispute existed but rather argued were lower than the figures proffered by the plaintiffs. However, despite the defendant’s admission to liability, the jury returned a verdict finding no liability in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20, 5-5-21, which the trial court denied. In response, the plaintiffs brought this appeal, arguing that the denial of the motion for a new trial was in error.
Posted in: Evidentiary Standards, Juries, Motor Vehicle Accident and Negligence	Published on: December 1, 2014	Updated: December 23, 2014 7:04 pm
Published on: November 24, 2014	Supreme Court of Georgia Examines Scope of Dram Shop Liability in Wrongful Death Suit
Under the common law, a purveyor of alcohol could not be found negligent for furnishing liquor to an intoxicated person who caused injury to another. With respect to injuries caused by the intoxicated person, the intoxicated person would be held liable, but the person who furnished the liquor to the would-be or already intoxicated person was not subject to negligence liability because there was insufficient “proximate cause” between furnishing the alcohol and the injuries the intoxicated person caused. Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Townsend, 279 Ga. 511, 511-512 (1) (614 SE2d 745) (2005). Although this was a well-established rule, the legislatures of many states realized that freely providing booze to another could foreseeably lead to the injuries, especially if one considers the relative ubiquity of intoxicated driving. Consequently, states including Georgia passed Dram Shop legislation that abrogated the common law and imposed liability on those who sell liquor under certain circumstances. The scope of Georgia’s Dram Shop Law was recently addressed in a case from the Supreme Court of Georgia, Dion v. Ysg Enterprises, Inc..
Dion arose from a motor vehicle accident in the early hours of September 16, 2011. On that evening, the husband of the plaintiff in this action died in a single-car wreck. The decedent had been drinking at Depot Sports Bar and Grill for approximately eight hours, and his blood alcohol level was measured at .282. While he was at the bar, the decedent was visibly intoxicated. In fact, an employee had asked for the decedent’s keys, which the decedent refused to relinquish. Following the death, the decedent’s widow brought a wrongful death action against Depot Sports Bar and Grill, arguing that the actions of the bar’s employees were negligent and that their conduct was the proximate cause of the decedent’s accident and death. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Georgia Dram Shop Law barred the widow’s claim. The trial court concurred and granted the motion, but the widow appealed.
Posted in: Dram Shop Liability, Motor Vehicle Accident, Negligence and Wrongful death	Published on: November 24, 2014	Updated: November 30, 2014 7:18 pm
Published on: November 13, 2014	Court of Appeals Reverses in Favor of Injured Driver in Atlanta Tractor-Trailer Suit
Published on: October 10, 2014	Georgia Court of Appeals Reverses in Uninsured Motorist Suit
Published on: September 9, 2014	Court of Appeals Affirms Decision Denying Determination of Apportionment in Motor Vehicle Accident Case
Although cases involving employer liability based on either direct or vicarious theories of tort law are far from uncommon, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently rendered a decision concerning a novel issue regarding employer liability and O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 (c) of Georgia’s Apportionment Statute. The case, Zaldivar v. Prickett (PDF-downloadable link), dealt with whether a defendant in a personal injury suit could invoke O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 (c) to apportion damages against a non-party employer whom the defendant claimed negligently entrusted the vehicle to the plaintiff.
Zaldivar arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, 2009, when the plaintiff and the defendant in this case collided at an intersection. The plaintiff asserted that he was clearing the intersection by turning left after the light turned red, and the defendant claimed that the plaintiff turned left in front of her as she entered the intersection on a yellow light. Both parties were injured in the accident, and it is undisputed the plaintiff was driving his employer’s vehicle at the time of the collision, which took place as the plaintiff was headed to a sales call. A little less than two years thereafter, the plaintiff filed the complaint in this action, to which the defendant answered. Although the defendant had also been injured in this case, she did not assert any counterclaims. However, the defendant did assert non-party fault as an affirmative defense and filed a “Notice of Fault of Non-Party” pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 (d)(1). The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s employer was at fault by negligently entrusting the vehicle to the plaintiff despite having received several calls in the past complaining about the plaintiff’s driving.
Posted in: Apportionment, Motor Vehicle Accident, Negligence and Vicarious Liability	Published on: September 9, 2014	Updated: September 30, 2014 9:18 pm