Personal Injury Articles by Attorney Craig Hardegree

Slip & Fall Cases in Georgia

Tree Failure Cases in Georgia

Diminished Value Claims

Full Coverage Insurance

Liability Insurance Coverage

Med-Pay Insurance Claims

Uninsured Motorists Insurance

Loser-Pay Rules in Georgia

Negligence Laws for ER Doctors

Slip & Fall Premises Liability Cases in Georgia - The "Catch 22" in Georgia law which heavily favors Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Publix, Kroger and other large corporations.  Craig Hardegree, Esq.

Many customers are under the impression that if they slip and fall in a business, the business owner is automatically responsible for any medical expenses incurred in connection with the fall, simply because the fall occurred on the business property.

Georgia courts follow the “superior knowledge” rule when determining whether a premises owner is responsible for someone slipping and falling on a foreign substance (water, banana peel, etc.) while on the business property.  Usually, in order for a person who falls to prevail on such a claim, the person has to show that: 1) the store owner knew or should have known about the substance being on the floor before the person fell and 2) the person who fell could not have discovered the substance herself through the exercise of ordinary care.

This rule is very protective of the business owner and makes it extremely difficult for the customer to prevail. The customer rarely has a viable claim which will survive in court because of the “catch-22” within which the law places the customer.  If the customer says that the substance on the floor was so obvious that the store owner should have seen it, the customer has then invited the argument that if it was so obvious, the customer should have seen it as well.  On the other hand, if the customer says that the substance was so hidden or camouflaged that the customer couldn’t have possibly seen it before slipping on it, then the customer has given the owner a great argument that if it was so hidden, there was no way for the store owner to have known about it in time to clean it up before the customer fell.

Formerly, most such cases were simply dismissed by the courts, without ever getting to a jury, if the customer failed the litmus question on the second prong of the rule.  If the customer admitted that she could have seen the substance had she been looking down at the floor, the case was dismissed.  The courts reasoned that a person was not being as careful as she could have been if she wasn’t looking down at the floor at all times.  A few years ago, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a ruling saying that the law in Georgia would no longer require a person to be constantly looking at the floor, recognizing the reality that most people are looking at merchandise while in a store.  For a time after that, more slip and fall cases were allowed to proceed on to a jury, instead of simply being dismissed by the court.

Recently however, a new trend has emerged where the courts are again dismissing most slip and fall cases before they ever reach a jury, this time on the first prong of the rule.  With the new litmus question, if a customer states that there was no way she could have seen the substance before she slipped in it, then the case is dismissed on the theory that there is no way the customer would be able to prove to a jury that the store owner should have seen it; hence, there is reason for the case to go to a jury.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Falling Trees and Tree Failure Liability Cases in Georgia  Craig Hardegree, Esq.

Spring storms and high winds often contribute to the downing of trees which can raise significant legal issues.  Trees often fall across property lines damaging a neighbor’s property or even the neighbor personally.  There have been many cases where death has occurred when a tree fell on a passing vehicle.  Whether the owner of a tree is liable for any such damage depends solely on whether the landowner had prior notice that a particular tree constituted a danger.  The amount and severity of the damages caused by a falling tree are completely irrelevant in determining whether the landowner is liable in the first place.  Also, the fact that a tree may be determined, after the fact, to have been in an advanced state of decay, does not impose liability on the landowner.  The landowner is only responsible if it can be shown that he had notice of a potential problem before the tree fell.

This begs the question, “Wouldn’t a landowner have a duty to inspect trees on his property to determine if any of the trees did constitute a danger?”  Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on whether you are the person the tree fell on or whether you are the person who owned the tree) Georgia law does not impose a general duty on a landowner to inspect trees for potential problems.  The rule which is often stated in such cases is that “there is no duty to consistently and constantly check all trees for non-visible rot.”

Prior knowledge of a potentially hazardous tree may be shown in the form of either “actual knowledge” or “constructive knowledge”.  The landowner has actual knowledge of a potential risk where it can be shown that someone reported to him before the tree fell that a problem existed, or in the rare case where a landowner might admit, after a tree falls, that he knew the tree was in trouble but just did nothing about it.  Since neither case is likely, a person damaged by another person’s tree will usually have to show that the landowner had “constructive knowledge” of a problem, meaning that because of existing conditions, he should have known of a problem, even if he actually didn’t.  The rule developed by the courts for proving constructive knowledge on the part of the landowner is that it must be shown that there was an “outward manifestation of decay which was visible, apparent, and patent so that one might be aware that high winds might combine with visible rot and cause damage.”

If you are a property owner and you notice things like a rotted cavity in a tree, mushrooms growing on a tree, a girdling root or other malformation, you may be well served to consult an arborist to determine whether a tree constitutes a hazard, especially if it is in close proximity to high value targets.  An arborist can also advise on the best way to eliminate a risk.

If you are concerned about the potential danger from a neighbor’s tree, you can also protect your interests.  Obviously you can’t force a neighbor to remove a tree from his own property, but you can place a neighbor on notice of a potential problem.  The best way to do this is to have a certified arborist look at the tree (from your side of the fence, of course) and issue a report to you detailing the outward signs of potential tree failure.  You can then send this report to your neighbor by certified mail.  When the tree does eventually fall and damage your property, the neighbor won’t be able to use the defense that he didn’t have prior knowledge of a potential problem.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Diminished Value Claims for Motor Vehicles Involved in a Car Wreck Craig Hardegree, Esq.

As a general rule, females are much more apt to seek medical treatment for injuries sustained in an auto accident than are their male counterparts. This may stem from the male machismo which some men feel is diminished by admitting to being injured. But mostly, this has something to do with the fact that men usually have a much greater attachment to their vehicles than do women. After an auto accident, many men are far more concerned with getting their vehicles fixed than they are with getting their selves “fixed”.

When dealing with damage to your vehicle following an auto accident, an issue which often arises is that of “diminished value”. If you have ever traded in a vehicle, you know a substantial loss is taken if the trade-in has ever been wrecked, regardless of how expertly it may have been repaired. This is the basis for seeking additional compensation for the diminished value of a wrecked vehicle, over and above the actual cost of repairs. However, whether or not you are legally entitled to diminished value damages, depends on whose company is paying for your repairs.

While it may seem backwards, if the at-fault party’s insurance company is paying for your repairs, you may not be able to collect for the diminished value; whereas, if your own company is paying for the repairs, you probably are entitled to collect the additional diminished value damages. The difference lies in the distinction between a tort claim and a contract claim.

When an accident is the fault of the other driver, that at-fault driver has committed a “tort” or a “private wrong” against you. Your legal recourse in such a situation is to bring a claim against that person, not against that person’s insurance company. True enough it is that person’s insurance company which will handle the claim and eventually pay the claim but, technically, your claim is not against his insurance company, it is a tort claim against him. Because of this, there are no black and white rules about what “he” (really his insurance company) has to pay you. The only thing he has to pay is what a jury tells him to pay, if the case goes that far. Short of actually going to court (and few vehicle claims ever make it that far) the amount which he has to pay for the damages to your vehicle is based purely on negotiations, which in turn are based on what each side believes a jury would award, if the case went that far. For this reason, you may or may not get the additional diminished value damages when dealing with the other person’s insurance company.

The issue is completely different when your own company is paying for the repairs. Since it is your own company, you have a contract with them, also known as your “policy”. In this contract, you have agreed to pay certain premiums and in exchange, your insurance company has agreed to pay your damages according to the terms of the insurance policy. Georgia courts have usually interpreted insurance policy language (relating to vehicle damage) to mean that a person has a contractual right to be made “whole”, with the measure of damages being based on the vehicle’s value, rather than just on the repair cost. The example often used relates to a vintage bottle of wine. If it is dropped and broken, fresh grapes and a new glass bottle may “repair” the bottle of wine, but they certainly won’t replace the lost value of the wine, regardless of how expertly the “repairs” are made. Therefore, because of your contract (policy), you usually can seek diminished value damages to your vehicle when your own company is footing the repair bill.

Generally, you will be dealing with your own company when you have a one-car accident (such as running out of the road or hitting a deer) or when you are in an accident that is your fault. You are usually dealing with the other driver’s company when the other driver is at fault, although you can opt for your own company to fix your vehicle even in that situation if you have collision coverage. However, most people forego this option, partly out of a sense of loyalty to their own company, but mostly to avoid the deductible.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Full Coverage Insurance for Auto Accident Claims Craig Hardegree, Esq.

One of the first surprises for many people who are involved in an auto accident is finding out that they are not adequately insured.  Many people mistakenly think they are fully covered because they have "full coverage".  Unfortunately, there is no standardized definition for the term "full coverage".  To the lien holder, full coverage means collision and comprehensive coverages, the categories which will cover damage to your vehicle regardless of who was at fault in the accident.  If the accident was your fault, fully covered will have a different meaning for the person you damaged.  To him, full coverage means that you have enough liability insurance to take care of all his damages.  In the eyes of the law, full coverage means that you have liability coverage in the minimum amount required by the statute.  Many insurance agents consider you to have full coverage if you have bought at least some coverage in each category, even if you have only purchased the minimum amount in each.

There are several categories of coverages which make up a policy.  Among them: Liability, Med-Pay, Uninsured Motorists, Collision and Comprehensive.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Liability Insurance Coverage for Car Wrecks Craig Hardegree, Esq.

Liability coverage is the main part of a policy.  It is the only part required by law.  It covers medical expenses, lost wages, pain & suffering, vehicle damage and any other damages that a jury might require an at-fault party to pay, if a case goes that far.  However, in order to get anything from this part of the policy, “liability” or fault must first be established.  If the accident was caused by the other person, then their liability coverage should take care of your damages.  If the accident is your fault, your liability coverage should cover the other person’s damages.

Liability coverage is usually sold with a breakdown on limits such as 25/50/25.  This is the minimum required by law.  It means that you have limits of $25,000 per person for bodily injuries with a cap of $50,000 per accident (meaning only two people could get the per-person limits) and $25,000 for property damage. 

Your own liability coverage "protects" you in that it pays the other person when you cause an accident (so you don't have to pay them out of your pocket).  It also pays for your lawyer in the event you are sued by the other party.  However, your own liability coverage gives no protection to you in the form of medical coverage for your own bills.  This is sometimes confusing because many policies use the term ‘medical coverage’ in the liability section of the policy but in that context, it is referring to coverage for the other person’s bills if you caused the accident.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Med-Pay Insurance Claims Arising from Car Wreck Cases in Georgia Craig Hardegree, Esq.

Med-Pay coverage is a form of no-fault coverage which pays for medical expenses incurred by you or any occupant of your vehicle regardless of whether the wreck was your fault or the fault of someone else.  It doesn’t matter if you hit a deer, a ditch, another driver or if another driver hit you – as long as you were in your vehicle and incurred medical bills as a result of the accident, Med-Pay will cover the bills, up to the Med-Pay limits which you have purchased.

Med-Pay is usually sold in limits of $1,000, $5,000, $10,000 and on up to $50,000.  Surprisingly, there is very little premium difference between $1,000 of coverage and $50,000 of coverage.  Even more surprising is the fact that many people don’t have this type of coverage at all and of the ones who do – even those with “full coverage” – they only have the minimum Med-Pay limits offered by their insurance company.

There are several reasons why people usually do not purchase adequate coverage in this category.  A majority of people simply haven’t looked into the type of coverages which they have – and usually don’t until it’s too late; until after they have an accident.  Some people who have looked at their policies see the term “medical coverage” and mistakenly believe they have coverage for medical bills.  Usually the term “medical coverage” appears in connection with the Liability portion of your policy and there, it is only referring to coverage for other people if you cause an accident.  Some believe they only need $1,000 in Med-Pay coverage, thinking their health insurance will pick up where the Med-Pay stops.  This may happen, but often it doesn’t.  Many health insurance companies refuse to pay accident-related bills or only pay on the condition that you reimburse them if you reach a settlement or obtain a verdict from the at-fault driver.

Another belief that sometimes leaves people inadequately insured is their theory that any accident will probably be the fault of “the other person”; that all of their own medical expenses should be paid by the other person’s company.  However, even if the other person is at fault in the accident, this still isn’t true.

Contrary to what many people believe, the law does not require the other person’s insurance company to pay for all your medical bills, even if the other person causes the accident.  The other person and his insurance company are only required to pay what a jury tells them to when a jury renders a verdict.  However, short of actually going to court and presenting your case to a jury (a process that will take two or more years) a settlement from the at-fault party's company will be based purely on negotiations – on what each side believes a jury would do if the case went that far.  In more conservative areas, juries often make awards which are actually less than the amount of medical expenses.  As a result, insurance companies often make settlement offers which are less than the amount of medical bills and which provide no compensation for lost time from work or pain & suffering.  If you have adequate Med-Pay coverage, at very least all of your medical expenses will be paid.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Drivers With No Insurance and Uninsured Motorist Coverage Craig Hardegree, Esq.

When you purchase uninsured motorist coverage, you are basically buying liability coverage for people who don't bother to buy their own.  The basic concept is straightforward – if you are involved in an accident which is the fault of someone else and if the other person does not have liability insurance to cover your damages, you can turn to your own uninsured motorist coverage for compensation for your medical bills and other damages.

The situation becomes more complex when the other person actually does have liability coverage, but has it in an amount which is less than your uninsured motorist coverage.  In this situation, the at-fault person is underinsured as opposed to simply being uninsured.  For example, suppose you are injured in an auto accident and incur medical bills of $40,000.  Suppose further that the other driver only has the legally-required liability limits of $25,000.  If you don’t have uninsured motorist coverage, you are out of luck.  The most you would get from the other person’s insurance company would be $25,000 and you would only get that if you were willing to sign a release agreeing to fully settle all claims – leaving you stuck with the remaining bills.

However, if you had $100,000 in uninsured motorist coverage on your own policy, the situation would be totally different.  In this example the other person would be underinsured in the amount of $75,000 since he has $75,000 less in coverage than you do.  In such a case, after securing a commitment from the other person’s insurance company for payment of its $25,000, you would then turn to your own company to negotiate for the balance of your damages.  This doesn’t mean that your company would just write you a check for $75,000; it simply means that there would be $75,000 more available.

The concept that you are, in effect, purchasing insurance for the other driver really sinks in if you are ever in an accident where you actually have to use your uninsured motorist coverage.  One might think that since you are dealing with your own company, you simply present your damages and your company will then write you a check.  Quite to the contrary, when you present an uninsured motorist claim to your company, your company becomes “his company” for all practical purposes.  You will have to negotiate with your own company just as if it were the other person’s company.  As odd as it may seem, if you are unable to reach a settlement and you end up having to file a suit against the other driver for your damages, it will be your own company which will hire the lawyers to fight against you and defend the other driver.  Still, having such coverage is far better than the alternative which is being stuck with trying to get your damages paid personally by an uninsured driver.  Usually a person who doesn’t have insurance, doesn’t have the financial means with which to personally compensate you for your damages.

Although Georgia’s laws are strict regarding mandatory insurance, there are still many situations where a driver may be uninsured.  An increasingly prevalent situation is showing up in connection with rental cars.  While the law requires a driver to have insurance, the law does not require a rental company to confirm that coverage.  The coverage which a rental company requires a driver to purchase usually only provides property damage coverage to protect the rental company’s vehicle – it does not provide liability coverage to protect you when the person driving the rental car causes an accident.  If a rental company derives a substantial amount of its business from drivers who are in the country with no documentation, it is not likely to risk losing that business by voluntarily requiring proof of liability insurance.

If you don’t have uninsured motorist coverage, you are basically playing Russian roulette; you are gambling that whoever hits you, will have adequate liability insurance.  By purchasing uninsured motorist coverage, you remove the gamble because, in effect, you have purchased insurance for the other person.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Loser Pay Rules Applicable to Negligence Cases in Georgia - Crazy laws that lobbyists can buy from Georgia legislators. Craig Hardegree, Esq.

In 2005 the Georgia Legislature passed a “loser pay” law dealing with litigants having to pay the other side’s attorney fees when the verdict goes against them. Insurance companies had argued that such a law was needed to curb unnecessary lawsuits. Trial lawyers argued that the law would have a chilling effect on people who might have a meritorious claim but who might not have the financial means with which to pay the insurance company’s attorney fees, if the jury happened to disagree with their valuation of the case.

The new law in Georgia went beyond simple “loser pays” and legislated that the side which does not better its position by more than 25%, has to pay the other side’s attorney fees. For example, assume that you were rear-ended by a drunk driver and you incurred $10,000 in medical bills. Not wanting to appear to be over-reaching, you decided to forego asking for pain & suffering and you only asked the other driver’s insurance company for $10,000, the exact amount of your losses. Assume further that the insurance adjuster, who had no medical degree, decided that some of your bills were not reasonable and necessary and therefore offered you a settlement of only $8,500. You reject the offer, file a lawsuit and go to court. At trial, the jury agrees with you and awards you the $10,000 which you had originally demanded. Congratulations; you won!

But wait. Twenty-five percent of the $8,500 offer is $2,125. The offer plus 25% totals $10,625. In order to have bettered your position by more than 25%, you would have needed to obtain a verdict of at least $10,625. Unfortunately, your verdict of $10,000 fell short of that target. Under the new law, even though you “won,” you will now have to pay the insurance company’s attorney fees, which could be several thousand dollars.

The law works both ways and it can even work both ways in the same case. Assume in the above example that in response to your demand for $10,000, the insurance company offered $7,500 to settle your claim. At trial, you will have to do 25% better than $7,500, meaning you will need to get $9,375 or higher in order to avoid having to pay the insurance company’s attorney fees. By the same principal, in order for the insurance company to better its position by 25%, it would have to obtain a verdict of 25% less than your $10,000 demand, meaning the verdict would have to be $7,500 or less, in order for the insurance company to avoid having to pay your attorney fees.

Suppose the jury decided to split the difference between your $10,000 demand and the insurance company’s $7,500 offer and came back with an award of $8,750. Each of you did a little better than what the other side was willing to do before court; you get $8,750 instead of the $7,500 offer and the insurance company only has to pay out $8,750 instead of meeting your $10,000 demand. However, since the verdict was neither below $7,500 nor above $9,375, neither side did 25% better; consequently, both sides will now have to pay the other side’s attorney fees.

Update:

Sometimes it seems that the Georgia Legislature puts very little thought into bills which they pay. Of course, with all the dances, parties, socials and hog suppers which they have to attend and with having to keep track of all the money which the lobbyists are funneling to them, who can blame them if they don’t have time to actually read the laws which they are legislating upon the common folk.

When the Legislature was told by practicing attorneys that their new law was near unintelligible, they re-visited the law in the 2006 legislative session.

The 2005 impossible-to-discern language was as follows: “If the offeree rejects or does not accept the offer and the judgment finally obtained by the offeree was not at least 25% more favorable than the last offer, the offeree shall pay the offeror’s reasonable attorney’s fees.” In the 2006 Session, this language was struck in its entirety and the following two paragraphs were inserted:

(1.) If a defendant makes an offer of settlement which is rejected by the plaintiff, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees if the final judgment obtained by the plaintiff is less than 75 percent of such offer of settlement.

(2.) If a plaintiff makes an offer of settlement which is rejected by the defendant and the plaintiff recovers a final judgment in an amount greater than 125 percent of such offer of settlement, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees.

In our example, you had $10,000 in medical expenses and you had decided to only ask the insurance company for $10,000. The insurance company had offered you $7,500. The jury had given you $8,750. Under the 2005 law, both of you had to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees because neither of you bettered your position by more than 25%. But what happens when we apply the 2006 law to the same example?

Analyzing our example under the new paragraph one, the defendant (the “defendant” is technically the other driver but in practicality the “defendant” is the other driver’s insurance company) offered you $7,500 which you implicitly rejected by continuing the litigation on through to a verdict. The verdict was $8,750. Seventy-five percent of the $7,500 offer is $5,625. Since your verdict was not less than $5,625, you do not have to pay the insurance company’s attorney’s fees.

Analyzing our example under paragraph two, you offered to settle for $10,000. The insurance company rejected your offer. The insurance company would only have to pay your attorney fees if the verdict was 125% of your offer to settle, or $12,500 in our example. Since your verdict was $8,750, the insurance company does not have to pay your attorney’s fees.

Using the exact same example, under the 2005 law both sides had to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees, but under the 2006 law, neither side has to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees. And, under our example, the 2006 law is how it should be – when a jury renders a verdict which is squarely in the middle of what both sides want, it’s probably a pretty good result and it makes no sense to penalize both sides for a good result.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.

Special Treatment for Emergency Room Doctors in Georgia - How lobbyist money buys legislation from the current majority party in the Georgia legislature. Craig Hardegree, Esq.

In Georgia, the mere fact that someone causes you damage or injures you, does not necessarily mean than you have a claim against that person.  You must first determine what level of care the other person owed to you before you determine whether or not he or she committed negligence against you by breaching that level of care.  Under negligence law, there are three levels of care:  slight care, ordinary care and extraordinary care.  The level of care which is owed to you in a particular situation depends on how the other person is legally categorized.

 As the term might imply, most people with whom you interact owes to you a duty of “ordinary care” which is defined as the level of care “exercise by ordinarily prudent persons under the same or similar circumstances.”  This degree of care applies to other drivers who are on the road with you, property owners and many other categories of people.  “Extraordinary care” is defined as the “extreme care and caution which very prudent and thoughtful persons exercise under the same or similar circumstances.”  This heightened degree of care is usually owed to passengers by the owners and operators of buses, ambulances and elevators.

 “Slight care” is defined by the Georgia code as “that care which every man of common sense, however inattentive he may be, exercises under the same or similar circumstances.”  Case law in Georgia has gone further to say the slight care is “such care as careless and inattentive persons would usually exercise.”

 Previously, emergency room physicians and emergency room staff were required to exercise ordinary care when dealing with patients.  Responding to what the insurance companies had argued were too many lawsuits arising from emergency room treatment, the legislature dropped the level of care required of emergency room physicians and staff to that of “slight care.”  This means that the person mopping the floor at the entrance to the emergency room now owes you a higher degree of care than does the emergency room physician.  While the emergency room physician and staff are no longer responsible for damages or injuries to a patient which result from carelessness or inattentiveness, the person mopping the floor is still responsible for damages caused if he is careless in the manner in which he mops the floor.

         If you have been involved in a car wreck, auto accident, truck collision, motor vehicle crash or any other personal injury case and you live in the cities of Carrollton, Bremen, Bowdon, Villa Rica, Temple, Hiram, Dallas, Douglasville or in Carroll County or Douglas County or in the Counties of Haralson, Paulding or Clayton, please contact our Douglasville Personal Injury Law Center for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer.