In certain cases, a plaintiff may not be able to recover damages for injuries sustained in a car accident.  In a recent Georgia Supreme Court case, Stevenson v. City of Doraville, et al., Ga. Sup. Ct. (2013), the plaintiff was injured while driving on Interstate 285 during a rainstorm.  He was in the lane nearest the median of the six-lane highway when his car started malfunctioning.  The plaintiff tried to maneuver his car over to the right shoulder of the road, but he only reached the third lane from the right.  At that point, he saw a police vehicle with its emergency lights on near the right shoulder of the road. The officer turned on his flashing lights when he saw that the plaintiff was having car trouble.  Once the car stopped moving, the officer’s vehicle was to the right and behind the plaintiff’s.

The plaintiff turned on his hazard lights and waited in the car for the officer’s assistance.  The officer however reported the problem and decided not to try to approach the stalled vehicle due to the traffic on the road. After waiting for a few minutes without receiving any assistance, the plaintiff got out of his car and tried to get the attention of the officer.  Moments later a tractor-trailer truck hit his car, which next crashed into the plaintiff, resulting in a multi-vehicle accident.  The plaintiff sued the City of Doraville and the officer claiming that he was negligent in failing to redirect traffic away from the disabled car and thereby causing the traffic to move toward the plaintiff’s car by turning on his emergency lights while stopped at the outer lane of the highway right near the plaintiff’s car.

The trial court concluded that “official immunity” protected the officer from liability and the “public duty doctrine” barred the claims against the City.  Plaintiff appealed, claiming that the public duty doctrine did not apply because he had alleged affirmative acts of negligence, and even if it did apply, he fell under the “special relationship” exception set forth in an earlier Georgia case. The court of appeals affirmed the decision, finding the plaintiff’s arguments lacked merit.  The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the decision, refusing to find that a police officer’s decision to turn on his emergency lights while stopped on the side of the highway to assess the situation involving a stalled vehicle at night on a busy road amounted to an act of negligence.  The court also refused to find that plaintiff’s situation fell within the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine.

As this case shows, a negligence lawsuit can be complicated and can turn on any number of legal factors.  If you have been injured in a car accident due to the negligence of another, it is critical that you contact an experienced injury attorney in the Atlanta area.

Stephen M. Ozcomert has over 20 years of experience handling automobile accident cases, representing individuals who have been injured as a result of another’s negligent driving in Atlanta and throughout Georgia. Call us today at (404)-370-1000 to schedule your free initial consultation, or you can reach us through our website.

Related Blog Posts:

Court Found No Evidence of Negligence on Behalf of Either Party in Car Accident Case

Georgia Supreme Court Interprets Statute of Limitations Provision Arising From Car Accident Case

Georgia Court of Appeals Refuses to Enforce Settlement Agreement Citing Demand in “Counteroffer

The case arose out of an incident where the plaintiff was rear ended, causing his head to slam against the driver’s side window, and pushed his car into the middle of the intersection. The plaintiff claimed injuries to his head, neck, back, and leg as a result of the accident. A jury found in his favor, and awarded him $13,000.

The defendant, Safeway, appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing testimony from the plaintiff’s doctor, and also in allowing the jury to consider an aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

The plaintiff’s doctor testified at trial regarding the result of his MRI, which showed a herniated disk, which he believed to be consistent with a timeline of around when the accident took place. Safeway argued that this testimony shouldn’t have been admissible, because the plaintiff should have had to prove that the injury was caused by the accident in order to be admissible.

The rule for requiring expert medical testimony regarding injuries, as adopted by the Georgia Supreme Court, states that:

Expert evidence is required where a `medical question’ involving truly specialized medical knowledge (rather than the sort of medical knowledge that is within common understanding and experience) is needed to establish a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.

That being said, however, the court held that back injuries resulting from car accident are squarely within common experience and understanding of jury members. They then cited another car accident case, for the premise that a back injury resulting from a car accident does not raise a medical question requiring expert testimony on causation.

Therefore, the court held that the issue of whether the injury was caused by the collision was for the jury to decide, and that the allowance of the testimony was not in error.

The court further disagreed with Safeway’s argument challenging the validity of the trial court having instructed the jury to consider whether the presence or aggravation of a preexisting condition was at play, following testimony regarding the plaintiff’s recently healed back injury was improper for essentially the same reason, i.e. that it was not proved. The court held that the evidence presented at trial regarding plaintiff’s prior car accident and injury was  was sufficient to support a jury instruction on preexisting condition, and the trial court did not err in so instructing the jury.

This common sense approach is an affirmation of the reality that we all know: car accidents lead to neck and back injuries. Requiring expert testimony on this matter in every case would be not only silly, but wasteful, inefficient, and simply unfair.

If you have been injured in car accident due to another individual’s negligent driving,  the first thing you should do after seeking medical treatment and contacting law enforcement, is to contact an experienced Atlanta car accident attorney as soon as possible. Stephen M.  Ozcomert is a knowledgeable personal injury attorney with over 20 years of experience, and is experienced with representing individuals and their families who have been injured as a result of the negligent or reckless driving of others in Atlanta and throughout Georgia. Call us today  at (404)-370-1000 in order to schedule your free initial consultation, or you can reach us through our website.

More Blog Posts:

Canadian Driver Charged with Vehicular Homicide in Deadly I-75 Accident, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published November 11, 2013

Four Tragic Accidents in Metro Atlanta Tragic Start to November, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published November 4, 2013