Atlanta Injury Lawyers Blog

A new study by the American Automobile Association shows just how concerned Atlanta car accident lawyers should be over the New Year’s weekend. According to the survey, approximately one in every 10 drivers drove under the influence of alcohol at least once over the past 12 months. This was even as 9 persons out of 10 in the survey agreed wholeheartedly that driving under the influence was a serious public safety hazard.

According to an analysis of data by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an average of 80 people a year die over the New Year’s Day holiday. That’s approximately 2 ½ times as many fatalities that occur on other days of the year in drunk driving accidents. In fact in 2009, there were a total of 79 alcohol-related accident fatalities across the country on New Year’s Day.

This year, the risks of being involved in an accident with an intoxicated motorist are likely to be much higher because New Year’s Eve also falls on Friday. The last time we had the New Year’s holiday on Saturday was in 2005, when a total of 90 people died in alcohol-related accidents. Georgia law enforcement agencies are bracing for a spike in alcohol-related crashes this year, as the New Year’s holiday combined with the weekend encourages reckless behavior.
Continue reading

A new rule proposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will help reduce the possibility of fatigue-related truck accidents in Atlanta. Last week, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced proposed changes to trucking safety regulations, including a provision that would lower the maximum number of hours a driver can drive consecutively to 10 hours. The current rule allows a maximum of 11 hours of consecutive driving time for truck drivers. The proposal also includes more rest breaks to allow start drivers to get as much rest as they need before they begin driving again.

However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration failed to finalize the rule altogether. The provision setting a 10-hour limit on consecutive driving by truck drivers, has now been subjected to a public comment period. Beginning from the 29th of October, the public can comment on this provision over a period of 60 days. A final decision on this matter has not been taken yet, in spite of months having passed since the FMCSA announced that it was revising the Hours of Service rules.

There is strong and powerful opposition to the 10-hour rule. The American Trucking Associations has already made its disapproval of the proposed rules, clear. In a bad economy, the trucking group has raised the bogeyman of financial upheaval in the industry, if the rules are approved. Specifically, the ATA is warning against decreased trucker productivity and efficiency if the 10-hour rule is passed. This isn’t surprising, but it does not bode well for truck safety, especially in Atlanta, which is the crossroads to the South. Many trucks pass through Atlanta from the North on I-75 and I-85 (which merge in downtown Atlanta) and then on to other destinations south of Atlanta. The temptation for many truckers is to work late and avoid massive traffic delays in and around downtown Atlanta by driving through Atlanta late at night or even in the very early morning hours. While this is a good plan on the truckers’ part, it does subject the citizens of Atlanta to potential dangers if the truckers are extending their day past safe hourly driving limits. This is why we need a firm law in place that limits the number of hours that a trucker can legally drive in a day. No one doubts that it is important for our economy for truckers to be efficient and profitable. However, this should not come at the expense of motorist safety. As anyone who has been involved in a trucking accident can attest, over-the-road 18-wheeler trucks are simply too big and too heavy to be driving by a driver who, due to being tired and overworked, is not fully alert and attentive.
Continue reading

The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) is the regional planning and intergovernmental coordination agency for the 10-county area including Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale counties, as well as the City of Atlanta. For over 65 years, ARC and its predecessor agencies have helped to focus the region’s leadership, attention and resources on key issues of regional consequence.

ARC is dedicated to unifying the region’s collective resources to prepare the metropolitan area for a prosperous future. It does so through professional planning initiatives, the provision of objective information and the involvement of the community in collaborative partnerships.

The Atlanta Regional Commission is designated as a Metropolitan Area Planning and Development Commission as well as a Regional Commission under the laws of the State of Georgia. As such, ARC operates under rules promulgated by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs.

A recent study by the Atlanta Regional Commission concluded that almost half of Atlanta car accidents involving pedestrians occur within 300 feet of a bus stop. This is alarming and needs to be addressed by traffic planners in the City.

One reason for the high rate of pedestrian accidents in Atlanta suburbs such as Brookhaven, Sandy Springs, Lithonia and Marietta–suburban roads were not designed and built to ensure pedestrian safety. As an Atlanta injury lawyer, I have seen many incidents of MARTA riders being hit after exiting the MARTA bus and trying to cross the street. This happens even when the pedestrian uses a crosswalk. It also happens in and around MARTA parking lots and transfer stations.This concerns me a great deal and I call on the Commission to not only point out the problem, but also to identify and implement a solution.

Common ways that pedestrians are struck and injured by negligent drivers on Atlanta roads include:

• Failure to yield to a pedestrian
• Failing to obey the posted speed limit
• Distractions such as cell phone and texting, eating, putting on makeup, and listening to music
• Drunk Driving
• Car equipment failure (brakes, tires, stuck accelerators, worn out windshield wipers, broken headlights, etc.)
• Poorly maintained roads

Like all other personal injury claims, pedestrian injury claims require evidence in order to prove your case in court. If a car hits and injures you, you should make sure to get the motorist’s name and contact information. You also need his insurance company’s contact information. If your injuries are too serious for you to get the information, ask a friend or one of the police officers to get it for you. Of course, make every attempt to find out which police jurisdiction is handling the case so that your attorney can quickly get a copy of the police report once it is available.

Contact the motorist’s insurance company, report the accident, and file your claim. Contact your insurance company to report the accident, as well.

The next step is proving the motorist’s actions were negligent and therefore caused the accident resulting in your injuries. Without proof, your claim will fail. Right after a pedestrian accident, you need to start asking the following questions:

• Did the motorist breach (violate) his duty of care (obligation) to me?

• Were the motorist’s actions the direct and proximate cause of my injuries? This is a legal standard and has been covered in other blogs on this site. However, suffice to say that it is an essential element of your case.
• Was the other driver negligent?
• Were there intervening forces, and if so, do they rise to the level of relieving the at fault driver or responsibility of the accident?

Continue reading

Potential new clients who call looking to hire an attorney after a car wreck often explain that they were involved in a serious car wreck and that, in addition to their physical injuries, the at-fault driver’s insurance company will not fully compensate them for the damage to their vehicle. The scenario is pretty common. The potential client was involved in a wreck, does not hire an attorney, and tries to negotiate a settlement with the insurance adjuster for one of the major insurance companies in Georgia such as State Farm, Allstate, USAA, Progressive or GEICO. Usually, the insurance company insists that they will pay for what they (the insurance company) consider to be a reasonable amount for the needed repairs. However, the insurance company, has a duty to also pay for the diminished value of the vehicle–something they often will not do willingly.

Fortunately, there is a Georgia law on the books that forces the insurance company to act fairly and adjust the claim in good faith within 60 days of a proper demand being made upon them. Under § 33-4-7 of the Georgia Code, if a loss to personal property is covered by an automobile policy, the insurer issuing the policy must “adjust the loss fairly and promptly, [and] make a reasonable effort to settle with the claimant potentially entitled to recover against [its] insured.”

If the insurance company does not satisfy this statutory duty, it is liable to the injured party for the value of the loss, up to an additional 50% of he liability of the insured for the loss or $5,000 (whichever is greater), plus attorneys’ fees.

The full text of O.C.G.A § 33-4-7 is as follows:

33-4-7. Affirmative duty to fairly and promptly adjust in incidents covered by motor vehicle liability policies; actions for bad faith; notice to Commissioner of Insurance and consumers’ insurance advocate

(a) In the event of a loss because of injury to or destruction of property covered by a motor vehicle liability insurance policy, the insurer issuing such policy has an affirmative duty to adjust that loss fairly and promptly, to make a reasonable effort to investigate and evaluate the claim, and, where liability is reasonably clear, to make a good faith effort to settle with the claimant potentially entitled to recover against the insured under such policy. Any insurer who breaches this duty may be liable to pay the claimant, in addition to the loss, not more than 50 percent of the liability of the insured for the loss or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, and all reasonable attorney’s fees for the prosecution of the action.

(b) An insurer breaches the duty of subsection (a) of this Code section when, after investigation of the claim, liability has become reasonably clear and the insurer in bad faith offers less than the amount reasonably owed under all the circumstances of which the insurer is aware.

(c) A claimant shall be entitled to recover under subsection (a) of this Code section if the claimant or the claimant’s attorney has delivered to the insurer a demand letter, by statutory overnight delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested, offering to settle for an amount certain; the insurer has refused or declined to do so within 60 days of receipt of such demand, thereby compelling the claimant to institute or continue suit to recover; and the claimant ultimately recovers an amount equal to or in excess of the claimant’s demand.

(d) At the expiration of the 60 days set forth in subsection (c) of this Code section, the claimant may serve the insurer issuing such policy by service of the complaint in accordance with law. The insurer shall be an unnamed party, not disclosed to the jury, until there has been a verdict resulting in recovery equal to or in excess of the claimant’s demand. If that occurs, the trial shall be recommenced in order for the trier of fact to receive evidence to make a determination as to whether bad faith existed in the handling or adjustment of the attempted settlement of the claim or action in question.

(e) The action for bad faith shall not be abated by payment after the 60 day period nor shall the testimony or opinion of an expert witness be the sole basis for a summary judgment or directed verdict on the issue of bad faith.

(f) The amount of recovery, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if any, shall be determined by the trier of fact and included in a separate judgment against the insurer rendered in the action; provided, however, the attorney’s fees shall be fixed on the basis of competent expert evidence as to the reasonable value of the services based on the time spent and legal and factual issues involved in accordance with prevailing fees in the locality where the action is pending; provided, further, the trial court shall have the discretion, if it finds the jury verdict fixing attorney’s fees to be greatly excessive or inadequate, to review and amend the portion of the verdict fixing attorney’s fees without the necessity of disapproving the entire verdict. The limitations contained in this Code section in reference to the amount of attorney’s fees are not controlling as to the fees which may be agreed upon by the plaintiff and his or her attorney for the services of the attorney.

(g) In any action brought pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section, and within 20 days of bringing such action, the plaintiff shall, in addition to service of process in accordance with Code Section 9-11-4, mail to the Commissioner of Insurance and the consumers’ insurance advocate a copy of the demand and complaint by first-class mail. Failure to comply with this subsection may be cured by delivering same.
Continue reading