Defense Verdict for DeKalb County Police Department

Taylor v. DeKalb County; State Court of DeKalb County
Civil Action File No. 06A50694-7
Defense Verdict:  December, 2009

The Plaintiff was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Robert Lamar, traveling north on Clairmont Road. A DeKalb County police officer was driving southbound in a DeKalb County police unit on his way to back-up a fellow officer. At approximately 2:30 a.m., Mr. Lamar attempted to make a left turn into an apartment complex across the southbound lanes of Clairmont and was struck by the police officer. The Plaintiff, who sustained a Traumatic Brain Injury and multiple fractures requiring surgery, sued DeKalb County alleging that the officer was speeding without his blue lights and sirens activated.  The jury returned a defense verdict on December 17, 2009.

Though the police officer testified that he was traveling "around the speed limit," there was expert testimony from both the Plaintiff and defense experts that the police officer may have been traveling three to five miles above the speed limit. This evidence authorized the judge to charge the jury that the police officer was guilty of negligence per se.

Nevertheless, DeKalb County argued successfully that the sole proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of Robert Lamar. Specifically, we argued that Mr. Lamar was impaired from drinking all night, that he failed field sobriety testing, and that he recklessly turned in front of the police officer who had the right of way. The jury found in favor of DeKalb County.

Verdict for Georgia DOT: Plaintiff's Injuries Caused by Drivers' Negligence

Fraker v. DOT, Superior Court of Fulton County
Civil Action File No. 2003CV71188
Defense Verdict: October, 2006.

Two were injured and one killed after a series of collisions in a Georgia DOT work zone on the ramp from Georgia 400 southbound to I-285 eastbound. The Plaintiff, a 56-year-old man at the time, had medical expenses in excess of $1,000,000. He sued the DOT alleging negligent design and maintenance of the work zone, specifically, that the collisions were caused by confusing striping, lack of lighting in the construction zone, and the lack of warning signs. Plaintiff’s best evidence were photographs taken by the Fulton County Police Department, which showed striping that had been ground out by the contractors, and approved by DOT, but were clearly visible in the photographs.

DOT argued that the signing complied with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Additionally, our employees and an expert we hired from Pennsylvania were able to educate the jury on grinding procedures and the reality of “shadow” lines or “ghost” lines in a construction zone. Finally, we argued that the crash was caused by the negligence of the drivers involved. The jury found in favor of DOT.

Defense Verdict for Georgia DOT in GA 400 Crossover Accident

Hawa v. DOT, State Court of Fulton County
Civil Action File No. 04VS064364C
Defense Verdict

The Plaintiff suffered serious leg and pelvic injuries when a vehicle left the northbound lanes of Georgia 400, crossed the grassed median and collided with the Plaintiff and several other southbound vehicles. Plaintiff sued the Georgia Department of Transportation alleging the negligent design of Georgia 400. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged the DOT should have installed guardrail or concrete barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing over the grass median which separated northbound traffic or Georgia 400 from southbound traffic. In support of this argument, the Plaintiff argued that most of the length of Georgia 400 between 85 and 285 had some type of barrier protection in the median. The last pretrial demand to DOT was $950,000.

We argued that the 44-foot wide median satisfied all engineering standards and guidelines in place at the time SR 400 was designed and constructed. Moreover, the DOT contended that a wide median gave drivers who left the paved surface of the roadway an opportunity to regain control and re-enter the travel way. By contrast, adding a guardrail or concrete barrier would be placing an additional hazard closer to the road so that drivers who left the roadway would be more likely to strike the barrier and could be deflected back into traffic. DOT further asserted that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the other driver who left the northbound lanes of Georgia 400 and crossed the grass median without ever touching his brakes. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of DOT, but against the Estate of Moses King, the errant driver, for $2,700,000.

Directed Verdict for Georgia DOT in Flooding Case

Reidling v. DOT, State Court of Hall County
Civil Action File No. 03CV2359C
Directed Verdict: December, 2007

The Plaintiffs alleged their property was damaged due to flooding of a nearby creek after The Georgia DOT negligently designed the Pearl Nix Parkway Extension in Gainesville, Georgia. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argued that (1) the DOT failed to provide for the disposal of the excess fill dirt in the original design plans; (2) the DOT negligently approved the contractor’s placing the waste pit adjacent to the Project in an alleged flood plain; and (3) that the construction of the Pearl Nix Parkway Extension and the creation of the waste pit resulted in an increase in storm water run-off during moderate and heavy rains, thereby forcing Flat Creek to swell beyond its banks and flood the Plaintiffs’ property.

Prior to trial, on motions for summary judgment, we were able to narrow the issue to just the question of negligent design. At trial, after Plaintiffs presented 3 ½ days of testimony and rested their case, we moved for a directed verdict and won. The Judge found that Plaintiffs had been given the opportunity and still failed to produce enough evidence of negligent design to go to the jury. The Judge directed that a verdict be entered in favor of DOT.