In one such case, Wolfe v. Carter, 726 SE 2d 122, Ga. Ct. App.  (2012), a man suffered injuries when he became sandwiched between two tractor trailer trucks, when an unidentified driver made a u-turn across the highway. Apparently, the visibility on that day was very poor, due to some thick fog-like smoke. The drivers of the vehicles and law enforcement officials reported an inability to see more than 20-30 feet ahead due to the conditions.

An officer that responded to the collision believed that a fire must have caused the smoke, and thus contacted the Forestry Commission, and learned that only one person, the defendant in this action, had conducted a controlled burn in the area. The officer did not know whether the smoke on the roadway was caused by the controlled burn and conceded that it could have been caused by any fire in the area. Thus, believing that the smoke was responsible for the collision, and that the defendant was the only individual granted permission to conduct controlled fires around that time, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.

The defendant filed for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it, finding no proof that tended to show, ”either that the burn was conducted or concluded improperly, or that smoke present on highway 341 the next day was even from the same general direction as the location of [defendant’s] prescribed burns.”

Furthermore, the court of appeals held that, even if the benefit of the doubt was interpreted most favorably to the plaintiff, the evidence was merely speculative, demonstrating just a possibility that the defendant’s fires were the cause of the hazardous condition. In order to be able to recover from the defendant, the plaintiff would have to show that the defendant’s fires were certainly the cause of the accident, and that the defendant was somehow negligent.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant engaged in gross negligence in conducting the burns, but the court did not agree, pointing to the defendant’s tests prior to conducting controlled burns, and other actions he took at the time.

The court did not address the disposition of any action taken against the truck drivers that collided into him at the time of the accident.

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. As one of the most sought-after personal injury attorneys in the state, Mr. Ozcomert has the advantage of over 20 years of litigation experience and caring dedication, affording you strategic legal representation. 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:

Georgia Court of Appeals Case Demonstrates Importance of Acting Quickly Following Trucking Accident, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published December 11, 2013

Default Judgment in Georgia Car Accident Cases, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published December 4, 2013

In one Georgia Court of Appeals case, for example, defendants were sanctioned for reportedly, “ intentionally destroying material evidence, for committing fraud on the court and the plaintiff, and for intentionally filing false responses to discovery requests.”

The defendants appealed the sanctions, and in the case, Howard v. Alegria, 739 SE 2d 95, Ga. Ct. App.  (2013), the Court of Appeals reviewed the long and sordid history of destruction of evidence and other fraudulent conduct.

The facts of the case were as follows: plaintiff was driving his pickup truck on Interstate 20 when he lost control of his truck. The truck swerved onto the shoulder and then back onto the highway before coming to a stop in the right eastbound lane of the interstate. Shortly after this occurred, a tractor trailer owned by ACT collided with the plaintiff’s truck. During the collision, the plaintiff sustained severe, permanent injuries.

According to the case, the trial court reviewed a record which involved several years of the defendant misleading the plaintiff, which included repairing the tractor-trailer before the plaintiff could inspect it, deleting the truck’s internal service record, lying about insurance coverage and an online computer module, and then later claiming inadvertent mistake and total innocence.

Additionally, regarding the computer information the defendant downloaded and then deleted, it claimed that the evidence wouldn’t have been helpful to the plaintiff anyway. An expert, however, stated that the information downloaded from the onboard computer, was “the highest and best evidence of what actually occurred at the time of the collision in this case.”

Regarding the inspection, defendants tried to place blame on plaintiff for failing to inspect by a certain date, eventhough they had admitted that the tractor trailer had already been repaired in some way just five days following the accident.

The court quoted another opinion regarding the egregiousness of fraudulent responses to discovery, as opposed to not responding at all, because among other reasons, the plaintiff may never learn that the response was untrue.

Therefore, for the reasoning above, and that based on the much more in depth analysis within the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions and other actions taken by the trial court.

As the court discussed repeatedly in this case, the reason why discovery fraud and abuse is so repugnant is because when evidence that is critical to a plaintiff’s case is destroyed, it may consequently render the plaintiff’s case unprovable. A plaintiff must establish that the defendant was negligent, and in order to do so, they need access to the underlying evidence of what happened at the time of the collision. Computer records on board the vehicle and the physical evidence of impact are incredibly crucial. This is why it is critical to act as quickly as possible following an accident, in order to ensure that records are not routinely deleted as part of a standard process. Unfortunately for the plaintiff in this case, the attorney did act quickly; it was the defendant who destroyed the evidence without the attorney or plaintiff’s knowledge until later on.

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 has over 20 years of experience in handling personal injury cases, and is experienced with representing individuals and their families who have been injured as a result of the negligent 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:

Default Judgment in Georgia Car Accident Cases, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published December 4, 2013

Georgia Court of Appeals Rules Expert Testimony not Required for Causation of Back Injuries in Car Accident Cases, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published November 25  2013