Articles Posted in Georgia

I’m amazed at how many smart, well-informed people are under the impression that if an accident occurs on a business’ property, the business is automatically liable for any and all damage. In the real world, slip and fall cases present much bigger hurdles to climb.

Georgia Slip and Fall Cases Never Sees Courtroom

Last week, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s summary judgment order denying a plaintiff relief in the case of Warner v. Hobby Lobby, a case illustrative of these challenges, even in a comparative negligence state like Georgia.

A federal judge in Georgia recently dismissed a slip-and-fall case against Walmart finding that the company owed the woman no duty to keep its store safe from water hazards.

In Chapman v. Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart’s Customer Service Manager began instituting rainy-day procedures. Employees were instructed to place carpeted mats in the inside vestibule, inspect the vestibule and front store area throughout the morning for dampness, dry off shopping carts, hand out umbrella bags, and use brightly colored cones to warn customers of possible water on the floor.

When the plaintiff entered the store, the rain had ceased, but the weather remained damp. She entered the vestibule to grab a shopping cart, not looking down at the ground while doing so. On her way to the carts, she slipped and fell.  Upon falling, she noticed a puddle on the ground. Plaintiff brought a slip-and-fall case in federal district court, alleging Wal-Mart acted negligently by failing to keep the store free of puddles and for failing to adequately warn her of puddles.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia, Georgia’s intermediate appellate court, wrote about a topic I touched on two years ago. In an extremely short opinion, this Georgia court was faced with the question of how far lawyers can go in referencing biblical passages in the Bible or other religious texts.

Powell v. State

The Defendant in Powell v. State appealed his conviction for aggravated assault.The evidence presented at trial showed that Powell was present during a fight between the victim and Powell’s brother-in-law. Powell had gone to the victim’s house to confront the victim’s wife about alleged theft from his sister. After the altercation ended, Powell shot the victim in the shoulder.

The First Division Georgia Court of Appeals overturned directed verdict in a carbon monoxide brain injury lawsuit after the trial court made multiple errors on what are frankly, some pretty basic issues.

First, the trial court erred in jury selection. Two possible jurors said they could be biased yet no effort was made to follow up with those prospective jurors to inquire about the bias. This is a no-brainer. Jurors at risk for bias have to be examined and bias concerns must be resolved. This is made pretty clear in Being a Judge 101. Apparently, this case was in a Mayberry-like town and both jurors were biased in favor of the defense lawyer, who they knew, and said they would be biased in favor of deciding the case. Check this out:

JUROR: I’m a CPA in Cordele.

[LAWYER]: You know—
JUROR: I mean, he’s my client and my attorney, so you know I’ve worked on many occasions with him.

[LAWYER]: I’m not sure this is-I don’t want to be inappropriate with the question, but is he your current client?
JUROR: Yes.

[LAWYER]: Is it on a personal basis?
JUROR [30]: Yes.

[LAWYER]: Well, I’ve asked a few times, but I’m going to have to ask again if that would—he’s your client, would you be inclined to try to find in his favor?
JUROR [30]: What do you think? Of course. (I love this. What do you think?)

Continue reading

The Georgia Court of Appeals has tossed a $459 million junk fax verdict on Wednesday, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding that the defendant sent 306,000 unsolicited fax advertisements because plaintiffs did not prove the faxes had been received.

Wow, $459 million for faxes? Juries are crazy. Well, actually, this was a bench trial but let’s not ruin the tort reformers narrative. I’m sure all the tort reform folks will pretend that (1) a jury decided this, (2) this was a tort action, and (3) there is a chance this is a collectible verdict against a siding, window, and gutter installation company that was in business between 2002 to 2004.

But, look, I think these junk faxes lawsuits are a little ridiculous myself. The idea of plaintiffs – or frankly their lawyers – getting money because they got a junk fax just seems ridiculous to me. I realize there is an economic burden associated with junk faxes and these claims might not be as petty in the macro picture as their are in the micro-picture. But on some human level, it is a fax, it is a cold call, let’s not get so worked up about nothing.

Maryland and Georgia both have rulings on tap from their high courts on caps on economic damages. Georgia got the ball rolling yesterday when the Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on whether its cap on damages for medical malpractice claims is constitutional. A Georgia medical malpractice lawyer argued for the Plaintiff that the tort reform law in 2005 is unconstitutional because it grants unfair preferences and exemptions to hospital emergency departments.

Plaintiffs have a real shot in this case. The Georgia high court has previously stuck down laws that gave special exemptions to asbestos manufacturers facing property claims. Stay tuned…. (UPDATE: NOPE.)

Georgia Malpractice Cap