Banner Image
Bringing the Right Experience and Legal Insight to Georgia


On February 4, 2020, a Gwinnett County jury of twelve, made a jury verdict award of $29,000.00 for my clients for injuries and bills sustained from a car collision in Lawrenceville, Georgia. The trial lasted one day in State Court of Gwinnett County.

On  January 15, 2018, Defendant was operating a Ford F250 truck owned by his employer in the course and scope of his employment and crashed into the rear of my client’s stopped vehicle.  The property damage to my client’s vehicle was minor to moderate. At the time of the collision, my client’s minor son was also in her vehicle.  My adult client complained of back and neck pain at the scene to the investigating police officer and her son complained of pain in his head and back.  Due to this pain, the clients went to Eastside Medical Center for examination and treatment.  Due to continuing pain, both clients sought treatment from an orthopedic clinic which housed chiropractors, physician assistants, physical therapists, pain management doctors and others.

My adult client underwent an MRI of her low back that reflected two disc herniations.  The treating doctor opined that the herniations were caused by the crash.  A herniated disc is similar to a jelly donut that has been squeezed so hard that the jelly has squirted out. It is a permanent injury with permanent pain.  My client testified at trial that she felt pain in her low back from the time of the collision until the present. By the time our case got to trial, my client had been suffering that pain for over two years!  The minor child had limited treatment.  The bills for my adult client were $9,809.26 and her son’s bills were $3,900.26.

Recently, I settled an outstanding lawsuit against an owner of an alleged “service” dog that was brought into a national chain of steakhouses in Greater Atlanta.  Nowadays, it is not surprising to see service dogs in retail stores, restaurants and other public spaces.  For my earlier post regarding “service” dogs and dog bites,  click here.

The backstory on our case is that the owner of the dog was on a trip from West Coast and passing through Georgia on her way to the East Coast with her friend.  Along for the ride was a mixed breed large male dog that growled at the hostess on the way into the restaurant and again at the manager of the restaurant on the way out after the attack.  Several other employees were also ready and willing to testify as what occurred after the dog bite.  Upon deposition, it was clear that the owner of the dog was a difficult and angry person.  There was no evidence available to indicate that the dog was involved in prior attacks/bites at people/animals prior to our claim.

My client was a young server at the restaurant and did not ask the defendant whether or not her dog was an authentic  and genuine “service” dog at the time of service pursuant to a mix of restaurant policy and nebulous law from a county/state perspective.  What actually constitutes a “service” dog is still up for debate from a city/county/state/national analysis and there are no clearly enforced guidelines to steer individuals/businesses in this regard.  In fact, anyone can do a Google search for a service dog vest for sale, buy it, and upon receipt place it on their dog with no questions asked.  The defendant later admitted during discovery that the dog was not a trained “service” dog and only wore (and did not earn a service vest – most likely, to discourage prospective questions when she brought her dog into public places of accommodation/service.

50062_dog_bite-300x225Over a year ago, a young vibrant 12-year-old little girl was walking and skipping in the street with her friends in her DeKalb County neighborhood at night.  At or around the same time and unbeknownst to her, a neighbor’s pit bull mix dog either pushed open a side door or gate and charged down the driveway and into the street toward the children.

Unfortunately, my 12-year-old client did not hear or see the pit bull until it was too late.  And the cries and shouts of her friends beforehand were wasted.  She turned, tripped and fell down upon the ground where she attempted to kick at the dog to protect herself to no avail.  The strength of the pit bull’s jaw leveraged down upon the victim, bit her to the bone and ripped a chunk of flesh from her lower leg.

The  adult male owner of the dog contended that the little girl provoked the dog to attack by kicking it in the street.  For what cogent reason a young child would kick a pit bull at night, the owner could only speculate.  Of course, the owner’s contention was a lie.

Attributed to Channel 2 News

A horrible news story came out today in Atlanta regarding a 5-month-old baby girl, Paige Bradley, who was killed in Forest Park, Georgia, by a German Shepherd dog. The back-story is that the dog had been around the baby for the baby’s entire short life.

The mother allowed the baby to go to a different home where a dog lived, ate, and slept. The male babysitter (and roommate to the mother) was asleep in a different room in the home at the time of the dog attack – the story does not indicate any details of barking, growling, noise or similar conduct at the time of the attack. The mother came to pick up the baby later that evening and noticed that the baby was not responsive – specific details of the particular attack were missing from the report.

I have represented numerous innocent victims statewide throughout Georgia who have been forced to file lawsuits against dog owners who have adopted dogs from the humane society, no kill shelters,dog-attack-1312618 and county adoption centers.  The adopted dogs in these cases have caused vicious attacks on children and adults alike; frequently, with permanent injuries and scarring that will last a lifetime and cause mental pain and suffering.

Without fail, the defendant owner(s) or possessor(s) of dogs in these dog bite cases highlight in their deposition and trial testimony that they graciously and selflessly adopted these dogs as puppies, young dogs, or adult dogs in an attempt to tug at the heart strings of the jury and garner sympathy for the plight that they owners find themselves in the suit.

While the adoption centers provide a great service to dogs of past owners that cannot or will not care for their own pets, the centers do not guarantee the temperament, personality or safety of these dogs to future owners.  In fact, when you review the adoption contract language that new owners are required to read and sign prior to taking possession of the dog, you see that the new owner affirms that the adoption center provides no representation or guarantee as to the temperament of their new pet and further understands that dogs are unpredictable animals that will behave in unknown circumstances and factual scenarios.

1307594_mobile_phone_in_handI was the first attorney in Georgia to be awarded punitive damages against a motorist who used his cell phone at the time he caused a car wreck.  This jury verdict was back in 2002 in DeKalb County, Georgia.  The law regarding distracted drivers has changed since that time; mainly, due to numerous and horrific collisions by distracted drivers that have resulted in death and serious injuries.  I have over 11 blogs regarding distracted drivers.

Today marks a milestone in curbing and preventing motorists from using cell phones while operating vehicles as Governor Deal has signed HB 673 that had been passed by both the House and Senate.  Effective July 1st, the State of Georgia has outlawed drivers from operating a motor vehicle while: 1) physically holding or supporting a cell phone; 2) writing, reading or sending any text or communication from a cell phone or stand alone device; 3) watching a video or movie on a cell phone or stand alone device; 4) recording or broadcasting a video from a cell phone or stand alone device.  Additionally, truckers are prohibited from: 1) using more than a single button to make or stop a call on a wireless device; and  2) reaching for a wireless or stand alone device that would result in the trucker getting out of his car seat or removing his/her seat belt.

However, motorists are allowed to: 1) send written communications by a voice activated device; 2) use GPS or similar device for navigation; 3) report an accident, hazard, criminal or emergency situation; and 4) use a cell phone or stand alone device while parked.  Moreover, utility workers, firefighters, police, ambulance personnel, etc. can use a cell phone or stand alone device while responding to an emergency while on the job.

u-s-supreme-court-washington-dc-1224318-300x226In 2018, the Supreme Court of Georgia in Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. Koch, 339 Ga. App. 357 (793 SE2d 564), advised that the plaintiff has a duty to preserve relevant evidence when plaintiff actually anticipates or reasonably should anticipate litigation.   The above cited case involved a tire tread (manufactured by Cooper Tire) that separated from the left rear tire in 2012 which caused a Ford Explorer to strike a guardrail.  The driver suffered serious and permanent injuries and subsequently died from those injuries.

The left rear tire was the only part of the car that was saved from the Ford Explorer.  In 2014, the estate of the deceased filed a product liability claim against Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. which alleged catastrophic tread separation and resultant collision due to negligent design and manufacture, strict liability, and failure to warn. Cooper Tire filed a motion to dismiss the complaint due to spoliation of evidence.  The trail court denied that motion inasmuch as litigation was not reasonably foreseeable or reasonably contemplated by the plaintiff.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court and rejected Cooper Tire’s argument that the trial court focused exclusively on whether plaintiff subjectively knew that a lawsuit over the incident and tire tread allegation was likely. The Appellate Court held that there was a distinct difference between whether defendant “actually or reasonably should have foreseen litigation” versus the plaintiff.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse any discretion in relying upon Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (774 SE2d 596)(2015), which applied an objective standard for spoliation.  Yet, the Court of Appeals did note that reasonable foreseeability of litigation involved both objective and subjective criteria.

Last week, two pit bulls combined to go in for the kill on a horse in Gwinnett County.  Somehow, the pit bull dogs were able to enter into the corral on the premises of a Buford area home.  The owner, Barbara Horrobin, advised that her horse underwent over four hours of suturing the wound from injuries to the neck, throat and armpit.  Horrobin stated that “[i]t was gruesome.”

I am not surprised at seeing yet another pit bull attack in Georgia.  The pit bull breed is still a popular choice among Georgia residents.  The more pit bulls in an area, the higher likelihood of an attack.

In this case, the pit bulls were prowling for a victim off their owner’s land and attacked without being provoked, teased or physically touched in any way.  Can you imagine if the two pit bulls went after a young child or baby?  It would most likely have led to the death of a human.

I field a good number of calls every year from concerned parents regarding injuries to their children at school.  The injuries usually occur on the playground or from other students (bullies) in the classroom.  The parents are upset as they claim that the injuries could have been prevented by proper supervision by the teachers and/or administrators. Typically, I tell the parent that it is quite difficult to pin liability on the teacher and the school for these harms.  A recent court case on this very issue was published today by the Georgia Supreme Court and is instructive for future student injuries at school.

In Barnett v. Caldwell, S17G0641, a high school student, Antoine Williams, was engaging in horseplay with another student at Benjamin E. Mays High School, a school in Southwest Atlanta.  The attending teacher, Phyllis Caldwell, left her classroom unattended around 2:45 p.m., and asked another teacher to “listen out” for her class.  Ms. Caldwell did not instruct the hall monitor to watch her class.

Antoine and another student were horsing around and Antoine fell to the ground with the other student on top of him.  The incident caused Antoine to lacerate a major blood vessel by a dislocated collarbone.  EMT took Antoine to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The “Textalyzer” is a device that allows law enforcement officials to review an individual’s cell phone usage using a machine that was developed by forensic technology maker Cellebrite. When the Textalyzer is connected to a target’s cell phone, it reveals if and when a phone was active and lists the apps that were being viewed or used and the times at which the phone was active. The Textalyzer has not yet been deployed for use by law enforcement personnel, but proponents and opponents have raised justifiable concerns regarding how the technology will be used to reduce texting and driving while balancing Fourth Amendment privacy concerns.

The name Textalyzer is so-named because of the device’s similarity to the breathalyzer device as both are a means of subsequently collecting data following an accident or traffic stop. Thus, defense attorneys have raised concerns about the implications on regulating the effects of refusing to consent to a Textalyzer analysis. If an individual is pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, he may refuse consent to a breathalyzer, but withholding consent will result in an automatic one-year suspension of the driver’s driving privileges. So, if a similar requirement is imposed upon individuals stopped on a suspicion of texting and driving, individuals may be forced to choose between relinquishing control of their cell phone over to law enforcement officials or lose driving privileges for a year. However, proponents of the Textalyzer argue that the design of the technology itself prevents the infringement of citizens’ Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The device only reveals if the phone was being used and how it was being used. It does not display the content of a text message or email. But, while the device in its current state does not appear to have the capability or option of displaying the content of texts or emails, it is only a matter of time until prosecutors begin to ask for an expansion of the technology to afford them the opportunity to view the content of those messages as a means of solving more serious crimes.

Right now, because the Textalyzer is not in use, drivers can only be charged with texting and driving if they are caught “red-handed” in the act of texting while operating a motor vehicle. Thus, the deterrent effect of the statute in its current form is minimal, as the burden on law enforcement officials is great and the risk of enforcement as to each individual driver is low. The opponents of the Textalyzer technology admit that texting while driving is indeed a problem necessitating some action as an attempt to minimize the frequency of texting and driving. To be sure, texting and driving includes not only sending a text message while operating a motor vehicle, but also prohibits the use of a cell phone generally while operating a motor vehicle. Before enacting a statute authorizing the widespread implementation of the Textalyzer as a means of combatting texting and driving, legislators must weigh the importance of combatting the use of cell phones while individuals operate motor vehicles with privacy concerns and individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Contact Information