Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Personal Injury litigation for auto accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, bicycle accidents, and pedestrian accidents can be unpredictable and can sometimes result in unexpected verdicts (some good, some bad). Even when a personal injury attorney tries a great case, sometimes the personal injury verdict is surprisingly bad. One such example is Richard Mace v. Alexandra Brown, a personal injury claim litigated by another law firm in the State Court of Fulton County. The car wreck occurred on February 7, 2009 when Alexandra Brown (defendant) rear-ended Richard Mace (plaintiff), a pastor of a church in Norcross, Georgia. The collision resulted in very little visible property damage to either vehicle involved. Ms. Brown (defendant) admitted that she was driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Blood tests confirmed a blood alcohol content of 0.179.

At trial in the State Court of Fulton County, Mr. Mace (plaintiff) presented evidence the the car accident caused jaw and shoulder injuries causing $52,628 in damages (past medical treatment, future medical treatment, pain and suffering, and for a life care plan. In Georgia, a plaintiff can be awarded punitive damages for DUI, hit and run, and any other conduct that shows a reckless disregard for human life. These damages are meant to punish the defendant for this type of bad conduct that is beyond just being negligent. At trial the plaintiff's attorney asked for $1,894,000 in compensatory damages plus punitive damage for the DUI.

The defense case presented the following to the jury to attempt to convince the jury to award a small verdict:

(1) Ms. Brown (the personal injury defendant) admitted she was at fault.
(2) Ms. Brown admitted that she was driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI),
(3) Ms. Brown testified how she had turned her life around by voluntarily attended counseling, joined AA, and created a support system to keep from drinking.
(4) They also argued that no injury could have occurred since there was very little property damage to the vehicles involved.
(5) The shoulder and jaw injuries were pre-existing conditions.
(6) The plaintiff did not immediately seek medical treatment.

This fact pattern often results in a large personal injury jury verdict since the plaintiff was a friendly respected person (a pastor), and since the defendant was DUI. However, in this case the jury verdict was a surprisingly low $21,543 which included $5,000 for punitive damages. This low jury verdict was more than likely due to the low property damage and due to the pre-existing nature of the plaintiff's injuries. The defendant admitting guilt and taking positive steps to turn her life around must have convinced the jurors to assign a relatively small $5000 for punitive damages. The Griffin Law Firm, P.C., a Norcross personal injury law firm, has been able to recover the policy limits on most cases when the negligent driver was DUI.

Personal injury lawyer, Richard Griffin, who is a champion member of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (G.T.L.A.), believes that the following lessons can be learned from the verdict in Richard Mace v. Alexandra Brown:

(1) GOOD SETTLEMENT OFFERS SHOULD NORMALLY BE ACCEPTED: It is often wise to accept good settlement offers rather than taking your chances at trial. However, if the personal injury settlement offers are unreasonable, then litigation is really your only good option.

(2) LOW PROPERTY DAMAGE OFTEN RESULTS IN LOW PERSONAL INJURY VERDICTS: Low property damage does not always result in low jury verdicts, but it sure makes it harder. Jurors often have a difficult time overcoming their assumptions that big property damage equals big injury and low property damage equals little or no injury. The Georgia personal injury lawyers at The Griffin Law Firm recently obtained a jury verdict of $500,000 in a personal injury lawsuit involving only $1200 in property damage so it is possible, just a lot less likely.

(3) THE JURY VERDICTS ARE GREATLY INFLUENCED BY HOW LIKEABLE THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT ARE: This means that if the jury likes the plaintiff the jury verdict is usually higher. If the jury dislikes the plaintiff, then the jury verdict is usually lower. The same is true when the jury likes or dislikes the defendant.

This means that it is usually wise to accept good settlement offers to remove the chance of a lower net recovery. What this means is that the higher cost of litigation must be factored in when determining if an offer is reasonable or not. If the likelihood is that the client will not net more after litigation, then settlement can be a great option.