Notable Cases
Defense Verdict for GDOT in South Georgia Smoke and Fog Case
In Salem v. the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Plaintiff sued for a catastrophic brain injury he sustained in an automobile collision which occurred just outside of Jesup, Georgia.
Salem v. The Georgia Department of Transportation; Superior Court of Wayne County
Civil Action File No. 06CV0271
Defense Verdict: June, 2016
In Salem v. The Georgia Department of Transportation, the Plaintiff sued for a catastrophic brain injury he sustained in an automobile collision that occurred just outside of Jesup, Georgia. Specifically, Plaintiff contended that the DOT and its employees breached their duty of care by failing to follow the DOT’s own policies and procedures detailing the specific protocol to follow when a smoke and/or fog hazard existed on a state highway. In response, Levy Pruett Cullen successfully argued that DOT properly responded to the smoke/fog on the roadway and that the crash was caused by the negligence of the drivers.
On June 24, 2016, after a five-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. The Plaintiff appealed the issue of whether summary judgment was properly granted to one of the GDOT individual Defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on April 17, 2018, and the defense verdict stands.
Verdict for Georgia DOT: Plaintiff's Injuries Caused by Drivers' Negligence
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 back in 1995. Plaintiff, a 56 year old man at the time, had medical expenses in excess of $1,000,000.
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.