Georgia Truck Accident Lawyers Blog

Georgia injury attorneys are aware that in all cases where you are seeking money damages against a municipality on account of injuries to a person you must send them an ante litem notice within six months of the event. Many of theses cases or claims arise from automobile accidents, trucking accidents, police chases and other tort cases. Georgia law actually prohibits bring any action against a municipality without first giving them such notice as provided by the statute, O.C.G.A.§36-33-5.

Georgia Representative Edward Lindsay has introduced a new Bill (House Bill 125) which, if passed will amend the current statute with respect to claims involving damage to real property. Specifically, the amended bill extends the time period for sending the ante litem notice to municipalities from 6 months to 12 months for claims for damage to real property. It also provides: “In the case of a claim involving damage to real property, where the adjustment by the governing authority fails to result in a settlement and the claimant recovers a judgment in excess of any amount offered in settlement, a penalty in the amount of 25 percent of the recovery shall be added to the judgment”.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of the negligence of someone employed by a municipal corporation, you should contact one of the injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP who will insure that your rights are preserved.

In order to operate a interstate motor carrier on the highways of this country, a motor carrier must have the minimum of $750,000.00 in liability insurance coverage. If such a trucking company causes an accident then, at least, the public has a minimum of $750,000.00 in available insurance coverage to address the damages that might be caused by a serious collision or crash. In a very serious collision involving catastrophic injuries, $750,000.00 might very well, in and of itself, prove to be inadequate to address the kind of medical expenses one might see when an amputation is involved or paralysis as an example. Nonetheless, at least it is a minimal safety net that does provide protection for the public.

Here in Georgia, the minimum limits of companies operating in intrastate commerce is $100,000.00. This is a deplorable state of affairs in a state which has so many trucking companies operating in its boundaries. $100,000.00 is clearly inadequate to address any serious injury caused by a truck collision or crash. Dumptrucks operating in Georgia that are hauling gravel in intrastate commerce, if they cross the centerline, run a red light or otherwise are involved in a crash due to negligence of the driver, are more than likely to inflict serious damage on the person or persons injured thereby. And yet, here in Georgia, we only have $100,000.00 to protect the innocent victims of such negligence.

The law needs to be changed to make sure that Georgia citizens are entitled to no less protection than are citizens in every other state when it comes to these large trucks. The danger is the same and the damage is the same and the question we pose in this blog is: “Why aren’t the limits the same for Georgia Citizens as for the rest of the country?”

Our lawyers here at Finch McCranie, LLP are committed to representing innocent victims of serious truck accidents and collisions throughout this state and elsewhere. We will fight for the rights of such persons particularly when trucking companies cause serious injury and/or death due to the failure to comply with state and federal safety regulations. If you or a loved one are damaged by the negligent acts of a trucking company, please contact our truck accident attorneys at our toll free number 1-800-228-9159.

Here in Atlanta and throughout the country a simple safety regulation has saved many lives with respect to dangers posed by trucks on our interstate highways. The safety regulation we refer to here is the conspicuity tape that one sees on tractor-trailers operating on our highways, specifically the red and white stripes across the bottom of trailers. This tape has saved many lives because it is illuminated by both low and high beams on vehicles as they approach tractor-trailers that might be straddling the road while attempting to back into a particular location.

For years and years there were many deaths and serious injuries caused by under-rides when vehicles would come over a hill or around a curve only to be confronted by a tractor-trailer that was backing in to a particular location. Given the delay caused by the human brain when perceiving and reacting to a situation which is unexpected, experience indicated that it was not unusual for people to have great difficulty in avoiding these under-ride situations. Thus, the simple safety measure of requiring conspicuity tape (the red and white stripe tape at the bottom of trailers) came into being. This conspicuity tape is very visible and alerts the brain of the driver very quickly to potential danger. Thus, the under-ride is avoided whereas previously without this conspicuity tape many people were being seriously injured and/or killed.

This simple safety regulation works. It does not cost a lot of money and it saves lives. Other safety regulations work as well when they are enforced. The good thing about the tape is that it is easily enforced. Other safety regulations are more difficult to enforce such as proper driver hours, proper safety training, proper employment screening of qualified drivers, etc. Without proper enforcement of safety regulations, however, the entire public is in danger.

Far too often, we have seen situations where an adherence to simple safety regulations would have saved lives and/or avoided serious injuries. Our innocent clients are the ones who suffer from the lack of enforcement. Now that the Bush administration is leaving office, we can only hope that the new administration will concentrate more on enforcement as a method of insuring compliance with simple safety regulations that save lives.

Continue reading " Atlanta Trucking Accidents Decreased by Simple Safety Regulations " »

Our Georgia truck accident lawyers see many instances in which truck drivers and trucking companies destroy evidence after the collision. The law has fashioned a remedy for this type of conduct - spoliation.

Spoliation refers to the destruction or failure to preserve evidence that is necessary to contemplated or pending litigation. Bouve and Mohr, LLC v. Banks, 274 Ga. App. 758, 618 S.E. 2d 650 (2005). Spoliation creates the presumption that the evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator. See, Baxley v. Hakiel Industries, Inc., 282 Ga. 312, 647 S.E. 2d 29 (2007); American Multi–Cinema, Inc. v. Walker, 270 Ga. App. 314, 605 S.E. 2d 850 (2004).

Proof of spoliation raises a rebuttable presumption against the spoliator that the evidence favored the opposing party. This fact alone renders summary judgment inappropriate. Baxley v. Hakiel Industries, Inc., Id; Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 484 S.E. 2d 249 (1997).

Thus, one who destroys or fails to preserve relevant evidence will be subject to a charge that had the evidence not been destroyed or preserved it would have favored the opposing party.

In Langlois v. Wolford, 246 Ga. App. 209, 539 S.E.2d 565 (2000), the Defendant driver left the scene of the collision before the police arrived so that a drug/alcohol screen could not be conducted. He later denied being impaired. The Court held that by avoiding the drug/alcohol screen, he had committed spoliation of evidence of his impairment at the time of the collision.

In J.B. Hunt v. Bentley, 207 Ga. App. 250, 427 S.E.2d 499 (1993), the Court had occasion to consider spoliation in the context of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. In J.B. Hunt, the Defendants destroyed a driver’s log book which is required to be maintained under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The Court held that this destruction entitled the Plaintiffs to a presumption that the logs would have shown that the driver violated hour of service limitations established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and supported an award of punitive damages.

Additionally, in J.B. Hunt, the Court held that the destruction of vehicle inspection reports, which are required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, raised a presumption that the truck was not in a safe operating condition, and also supported the award of punitive damages.

The case of Wanke v. Lynn’s Transportation Company, 836 F. Supp. 587 (Ind. 1993), presented the issue of spoliation involving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation §382.303 which requires a post accident drug/alcohol screen. In Wanke, the truck driver involved in a collision failed to submit to the required test.

The Court found that the driver had committed spoliation of evidence, reasoning that “the jury could find, however, that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to a passive spoiliation(sic) allowing any suspected evidence of drug or alcohol to pass through Mr. Marsh’s system.” The Court further held that the failure to take the drug test “makes the fact of consequence to the action – Mr. Marsh’s intoxication at the time of the collision – more probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Continue reading " Truck Accident Cases and Destruction of Evidence In Georgia " »

Our U.S. law firm celebrates Canada's Thanksgiving Day in October for a reason. When some Canadian citizens suffered tragic injuries and deaths in a tractor-trailer accident in Georgia some years ago, a Canadian lawyer contacted me to represent his parents, who had lost a son in this horrific truck wreck.

That role of helping Canadian families with their legal needs grew, as another Canadian family (through their Canadian lawyer) contacted me for the same reason.

I spent a Canadian Thanksgiving visiting the surviving parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, and in-laws of one of the most delightful human beings whom I never had the pleasure of meeting, but whom I came to know through representing his family through this tragedy. Their "real" Thanksgiving was delayed until we successfully resolved their case.

Later, in visiting the homes of other Canadian clients, I developed more of these bittersweet relationships with very fine people who live north of our U.S. border. We are now lifelong friends.

Recently, in visiting with our Canadian consul and his wife in Atlanta (terrific people who are neighbors of ours), I recounted some of the stories of these wonderful families. He requested our firm's contact information and said he was glad to know that our law firm is available to help Canadian families dealing with personal injuries or deaths in the U.S.

We have a great appreciation for our clients from Canada, and look forward to helping other Canadian families.