Atlanta Injury Lawyers Blog

Effective January 1, 2009, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") was amended to broaden the number of workers who are protected by the ADA. Under the ADA, workers are "disabled" if they suffer from (1) an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) possess a record of such impairment; or (3) are regarded as having such an impairment.

While this definition has not changed, the amendment instructs the Courts to take a broader construction of this definition, which, in turn, should include more American workers who suffers from impairments. In addition, the amendment instructs the Courts to broaden the definition of "major life activity," which, once again, should result in more Americans who suffer from significant impairments being protected under the ADA.

The amendments seem to be coordinated to broaden the number of workers covered by the ADA. A welcome relief in these trying economic times. Georgia workers should benefit from this relief, as every Georgia worker is entitled to safe and humane working conditions.

Robert J. Fleming, P.C. is dedicated to protecting the rights of Georgia workers who have been killed or seriously injured on the job. If you or a family member have been killed or seriously injured, call us today at (404) 923-7497 for a free initial consultation. We are here to help.

Most experienced injury lawyers agree that the owner of a chimpanzee shot and killed by police after it attacked a 55-year-old woman last week will likely be named in a lawsuit. The state could also be held liable in the incident because it should have known the animal was a risk to the public. The victim of the attack remains in critical condition at the Cleveland Clinic as doctors evaluate her injuries, according the the Hartford Courant.

In Georgia, a pet owner is held strictly liable for injuries caused by vicious wild animals belonging to her, because such animals are considered inherently dangerous. Candler v. Smith, 50 Ga.App. 667 (1935). A dog, as a matter of law, is not subject to the rules governing wild animals. Harper v. Robinson, 263 Ga. App. 727(1) (2003).

However, Georgia law provides for liability to pet owners who "knew or should have known of the [vicious] propensities." OCGA Code Section 51-2-7. While the commonly quoted "one bite rule", i.e., every dog is entitled to its first bite, illustrates one way in which an owner would be held liable, it is not the only way. For instance, even if a dog has never attacked or bitten someone before, the dog's owner could be liable for damage caused by the dog if "the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city [or] county and the animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash." Id.

Dog bites can be very painful and, in some cases, they can inflict long-lasting emotional impacts on victims. Care should be taken by all responsible dog owners to ensure that their dogs are not left in a position to attack and hurt innocent victims.

Continue reading " Georgia Dog Owners Beware " »

I'm sure most people caught the outrageous story of the 200-pound pet chimp who went berserk and attacked his owner's house guest. Sure to draw attention due to the bizarre circumstances, the story appeared in most newspapers across the country including the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Charla Nash, 55, was visiting her good friend, Sandra Herold, when Herold's beloved 14-year-old chimpanzee, Travis, savagely attacked Nash, leaving her in critical condition at Stamford Hospital. The chimp could be heard in the background grunting while attacking Nash as Herold sobbed to the 911 dispatcher, "He's killing my friend...My Chimpanzee...He ripped her apart...Shoot him...Shoot him."

Herold admitted during an interview aired on NBC's "Today" show that she had given Travis the anti-anxiety drug, Xanax, which had not been prescribed to him. As authorities considered criminal charges, Herold recanted this account and now denies that she gave the chimp the drug.

The same chimp, who was fatally shot by police during the attack of Nash, also bit a woman in 1996, the woman said in an interview broadcast Thursday.

The woman, Leslie Mostel-Paul of Atlanta, Georgia, said Travis the chimp bit her hand and tried to pull her into a vehicle as she greeted him. She said she complained to the chimp’s owner and to police.

Travis was killed Monday after severely wounding his owner’s friend, 55-year-old Charla Nash. Nash remained hospitalized Thursday with critical injuries to her face and hands.

“I honestly believe if they had followed through, maybe the laws would have been changed sooner and this other woman wouldn’t be in the hospital, fighting for her life now,” said Mostel-Paul, a former Stamford resident who lives in Atlanta.

Owner Sandra Herold, who raised the chimpanzee from its infancy, has said he was a loving pet whose behavior Monday was completely out of character.

Herold speculated that Travis was being protective of her when he attacked Nash, who she said was driving a different car, wearing a new hairstyle and holding an Elmo stuffed toy in front of her face as a present to the chimp.

Meanwhile, an animal control officer, Lynn DellaBianco, said she warned Herold in 2003 after Travis escaped Herold’s vehicle and frolicked in downtown Stamford traffic for a few hours. DellaBianco, who ran Stamford’s animal shelter at the time, told “Today” she warned Herold that the pet’s mischievous behavior was worrisome.

“I did express concern that obviously this could turn into something worse if he really decided to start getting angry and do something,” DellaBianco said.

Authorities have not said whether Herold will face criminal charges. State law allowed her to own the 14-year-old chimp as a pet, though several state leaders are calling for tighter restrictions in the wake of the latest attack.

While bizarre to say the least, this case illustrates potential liability that pet owners face for actions of their pets. While most people think that Georgia and other states apply the "one free bite" rule, this is not the case. Generally, a pet owner can be held liable for the injuries of their pet if they new, or should have known that the animal was dangerous to others. One concrete example of this would be an attack by an animal who has previously attacked before. In the case of Travis the Chimp, the 1996 biting of the Atlanta woman should suffice as prior notice on Herold's part that Travis was a potential danger to others. While this is true, and the "one bite" rule does apply, the law regarding liability in these cases is much broader. If an animal owner is negligent and that negligence leads to an attack, the animal owner will be liable to the victim for the damages suffered in the attack. This general rule of liability applies even if the animal has never attacked before.

The first element of a Georgia medical malpractice claim is duty. More specifically, "duty" means a legal obligation to conform to a standard of conduct or standard of care. Of all the elements we will discuss, this is often the easiest to prove. If a doctor treats a patient, a doctor- patient relationship exists. Once the relationship exists, the doctor has the duty to treat and care for the patient in a manner that a reasonably prudent doctor under similar circumstance would. The relationship between a health-care provider and patient is established when a patient knowingly seeks the care of a health-care provider and the health care provider knowingly accepts the patient for treatment. http://www.lawriter.net/cgi-bin/texis/web/caselaw/+lQeDKWFezxbnme7i2wezyAxwwxFqEnAo5n3AtKV1MG5coDwGzwDKWqvIFqqHE/svindex.html?doc=1

Absent unusual circumstances, the doctor-patient relationship is usually present, so we will focus more on the other elements of the Georgia medical malpractice claim in future posts.

Generally speaking, medical malpractice cases in Georgia are governed by the same basic principles as other negligence cases, with a few added requirements. In fact, while the term, "medical malpractice" is widely used and accepted by lawyers and non-lawyers alike, "medical negligence" is perhaps a better term because it more cogently conveys what this type of case is all about, i.e., negligence on the part of a medical provider that results in injury to the patient.

The basic elements of negligence in Georgia are (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct; (2) a breach of this duty; (3) a causal connection between the breach of this duty and the resulting injury; and (4) some loss or damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the negligence. Strickland v. Vaughn, 221 Ga. App. 636 (1996).

In the following entries, I will examine each area in more detail. In turn, this will uncover the basic elements of a medical malpractice claim and shed some light on why some bad outcomes do not lead to meritorious cases while other most certainly do.

Kudos to the federal government for implementing a simplified approach to evaluating nursing homes. Unfortunately, the streamlined ratings expose Georgia's nursing homes for being inadequately staffed. According to a recent U.S. News and World Report Article, Georgia lags behind every other state except Louisiana in the percentage of nursing homes in the state that are adequately staffed and properly caring for patients.

This is not surprising, considering the horrific accounts of neglect, abuse and mistreatment that are reported about many Georgia nursing homes, mental institutions and treatment facilities. Not only is there not enough staff to care for the residents, many times the staff members that are on duty do not possess the training and skills to properly carry out their duties. This leads to inattentiveness, mistakes and, ultimately, inadequate care.