I have tried serious injury cases for over forty years. Years ago, I saw terribly low verdicts for catastrophic harm. More recently, we have seen eight-figure verdicts that would have shocked judges when I was a puppy lawyer. What changed?

Insurance defense folks in their seminars have used phrases like “nuclear verdicts.” That makes it sound reckless or irrational. But in my experience, most juries take their job seriously. They discuss seriously the facts of the case and legal principles on which the judge instructs them.

They also bring into the jury room their experience in the world in which we live.

Here are ten reasons verdicts have grown.

1. Big Numbers Don’t Shock People Like They Used To

Inflation has reshaped expectations. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the steady rise in consumer prices through the Consumer Price Index. Citizens who wind up on juries see that in real time every time they buy groceries, gas, or homes.

They hear news reports of tycoons and even some politicians reaping billions on wild-sounding deals in technology, crytocurrency, etc. The “b word” (billion) seems little more fanciful than the “m word” (million) did 50 years ago.

When an economist projects $6 or $8 million over a lifetime of care, it no longer sounds imaginary. It sounds expensive but credible.

2. Medicine Keeps People Alive But At a Cost

When I was growing up, the ambulance arriving at a wreck scene was often operated by the funeral home.  The after-school and weekend job of one of my high school classmates was to drive the “meat wagon.” There was no first responder training and no paramedic on the scene to stabilize a catastrophically injured person. Too often, they just went straight to the funeral home. 

Many catastrophic injuries were fatal. Today, emergency medicine and advanced trauma care and rehabilitation save lives. But survival comes at a price. Often, it requires decades of structured support. Life care planners build detailed projections based on medical research and standards published through sources like the National Institutes of Health.

Jurors understand that survival without resources can mean suffering. They award money to fund stability.

3. Corporate Trust Has Eroded

Public trust in major institutions has declined over the years since Watergate. Surveys from the Pew Research Center  egularly document this trend.

When  internal documents and emails show ignored safety complaints or cost-cutting decisions, jurors can easily connect it to a broader narrative about profit over people. That matters in the jury room with rules-oriented jurors who distrust institutions.

In planning mock jury focus groups, we have often deliberately limited the group to the most politically and socially conservative people. They have surprised us by coming up with numbers much higher than a mock jury that represented a broader cross-section of the population.

4. Safety Rules Are Clear and Public

In trucking, aviation, medicine, and manufacturing, safety standards are spelled out in black and white. For example, commercial motor carriers operate under federal rules issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which are simply explained in the Commercial Drivers License Manual. Commercial truck drivers and safety managers have no credible way to deny those are the industry standards they are supposed to follow.

Clear rules make liability feel concrete. When a company violates a clear safety rule, jurors see it not as just an accident but a deliberate and unsafe choice.

5. Social Media Changed the Background Noise

Years ago, corporate misconduct stayed local. Today, bad news travels fast. Anything that makes news anywhere seems local and immediate. Jurors have watched stories about defective products, data breaches, and regulatory failures. That background shapes how they interpret evidence. Jurors do not enter the courtroom empty-headed.

6. Trial Lawyers Tell the Story Differently Now

Modern trial strategy focuses on safety and preventability. Lawyers talk not about sympathy but about common sense safety  rules and how small decisions cascade into harm.

7. Anchoring Influences Damage Awards

When a lawyer suggests a specific figure for pain and suffering, that number becomes a reference point. Jurors may reduce it, but they rarely ignore it. Anchoring is not just  manipulation. It is human cognition at work. Psychologists have long studied how framing affects judgment. The concept of cognitive “anchoring” is well established, including in research summarized by the American Psychological Association.

The Georgia legislature in its latest “tort reform” tried to stop anchoring by enacting OCGA § 9-10-184, which provides, “ In the trial of a civil action for personal injuries, counsel shall be allowed to argue the worth or monetary value of pain and suffering to the jury; provided, however, that any such argument shall conform to the evidence or reasonable deductions from the evidence in the case.”

In legislative debate, politicians talked about stopping lawyers from analogizing to the price of paintings and race horses. However, an experienced trial lawyer has no need to talk about such crudely irrelevant distractions. A good advocate can easily suggest to jurors a way to calculate value based on the evidence and reasonable deductions. Nearly two decades ago, I gave jurors a methodology tied to the evidence and linked to reality in their rural county through which they calculated a verdict a million dollars more than I asked for.

8. Younger Jurors View Institutions Differently

Now on the senior end of the generation gap, I have seen several times how generational shifts are real. Many younger jurors grew up during the financial crisis, corporate scandals, and rising inequality. They carry student debt. They have seen layoffs. They question concentrated power more readily.

This does not mean they are anti-business. It means they may weigh accountability differently than their parents or grandparents.

9. Transparency About Corporate Wealth

Public companies disclose executive compensation and financial performance through filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. We all see news reports about individuals making billions on crypto or a tech tycoon closing in on a trillion dollars net worth, it registers. Even billboards for the lottery touting jackpots over a billion dollars feeds the idea that it could happen to them. At some level, all that registers. When jurors see astronomical CEO bonuses alongside safety violations, they calibrate verdicts accordingly.

A verdict that once seemed massive may now feel proportional.

10. Preventable Harm Sparks Moral Reaction

The most significant driver of large verdicts is not sympathy but preventability.

An impaired or fatigued trucker. A manufacturer that ignored a recall warning. A hospital that brushed aside red flags. When jurors conclude, “This did not have to happen,” damages climb. Moral judgment is powerful. It always has been but now it carries a bigger price tag.

Large verdicts do not come from thin air. They usually arise from clear liability and serious, permanent harm. Venue still matters. Facts matter more. I have seen conservative rural counties return modest verdicts in serious cases and urban juries surprise plaintiffs with restraint. But I have also seen the opposite, surprisingly adequate verdicts in the most conservative venues.

Money is the only remedy our civil system offers. Jurors know that. They cannot undo a spinal cord injury or restore a dead child. They can only assign responsibility in dollars.

After decades in the courtroom, I recognize that modern verdicts reflect modern expectations about safety, accountability, and dignity. When people on a jury believe a company or individual chose risk over safety, they are not afraid to respond firmly.

Ken Shigley, senior counsel at Johnson & Ward, Atlanta’s oldest personal injury specialty law firm, is a former president of the State Bar of Georgia. He was the first Georgia lawyer to earn three board certifications from the National Board of Trial Advocacy: Truck Accident Law, Civil Trial Practice, and Civil Pretrial Practice. He was the lead author of eleven editions of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, and received the Traditions of Excellence Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice and Trial Section. B.A., Furman University; J.D., Emory University Law School; Certificates in mediation and negotiation, Harvard Law School. He began his career as an Assistant District Attorney, then worked a decade in an insurance defense law firm before entering plaintiffs’ practice.

A car crash can be one of the most traumatic events most people are likely to experience. It is an unexpected event that can be instantly life-changing for you and your family. There are 10 very important things that you need to do after a wreck in order to protect you, your family, and the compensation relief that you deserve.

1)                     Stay at the scene – The shock and trauma of being in an accident can cause you to not think clearly. However, it is very important that you stay at the scene of the accident and that you do NOT leave the scene. If you do leave the scene of the accident then it could imply guilt as well as result in criminal charges against you. Stay at the scene and wait for the police to arrive.

2)                     Call 911 and report the crash– It is very important that you call 911 and report the accident. Especially if you or the other party are injured. As soon as you can, call 911 and report the accident. If you call 911 first, then you will be able to explain what has happened and the events surrounding the scent better than anyone else can at that time. So call 911 and report the accident.

3)                     Do not admit fault or apologize – DO NOT say “I’m sorry” or apologize at the scene of the accident. Your judgment can be flawed in the emotions of the moment. Fault can be sorted out later. An impulsive statement can be used as an admission of guilt against you. It is very important to make sure that the police officer does not put your apology in their police report as well. So DO NOT apologize or say “I’m Sorry”.

4)                   Limit your conversation about the accident with the other party – After the crash, seek to exchange insurance information but do not get into further conversation. The other party may try to talk with you about what happened and why you did what you did or why they did what they did. It is very important that you do not engage in this type of conversation with the other party. Be polite and exchange information. If the other party tries to talk about what happened, politely refrain from such conversation until the police arrive.

5)                   Get photos and videos of the vehicles and the scene – Everyone these days has a smartphone so it is very important to remember to take pictures and videos of the scene. Try to take pictures and videos of the cars in the accident and the damage to both cars from all angles. Video the surrounding areas such as street intersections and weather conditions. Pictures and video of the surrounding area can be valuable information to your case. If the other driver was in a business vehicle, get clear photos of all writing on it. If it is a large truck get pictures of the truck door and all permit stickers.

6)                     If Injured, don’t move around – After the accident, the most common injury is a neck or back injury. This injury can be magnified or even cause permanent damage if you move around after the accident. If you feel like there is significant damage to your neck, back, or any body part then don’t move or get out of your car. Wait for the ambulance and first responders to arrive and check you out first. You may need to be carried out on a stretcher into the ambulance.

7)                     Go to the hospital if you have any injuries – At the time of the accident it is very important to take a moment and do a self-assessment of how your body is feeling. The adrenaline will be rushing through your body after an accident, so it will be difficult to feel certain pain until the adrenaline leaves your body. Take a minute and assess how you are physically feeling. Neck and back injuries will begin to hurt after the adrenaline is gone, so if there are any injuries, let the ambulance take you to the hospital to be checked out immediately.

8)                     Do not talk to the other party’s insurance company – After the accident, the other party’s insurance company will try to call you and get a statement from you of the events of the accident. They will do this over a recorded line. Other than giving the name of an attorney you have actually hired, do not talk to them or give any statements to them about the crash. The insurance company is not on your side and they are going to try and ask you questions that imply that you are guilty and responsible for the accident. Do Not speak to them.

9)                     Call our team AtlantaInjuryLawyer team at Johnson & Ward – After a motor vehicle crash,  you need advice and a road map on how to handle this traumatic experience. We have helped thousands of clients in your same situation navigate the legal process and battle the insurance companies. His experience will help you get fairly compensated and reimbursed for the injuries that you suffered. Call us at (404)253-7862.

10)                   Let your Attorney be your Advocate to the Insurance Company – The insurance company is not your advocate or your friend. Even your own insurance company does not have your best interest in mind. The insurance company works for the best interest of the insurance company. Their primary goal is to not pay out any money and then their second goal is to pay out the least amount of money possible. Let the AtlantaInjuryLawyer team at Johnson & Ward be your voice.

Ed Stone is a trial attorney specializing in personal injury law, including truck accidents, auto accidents, wrongful death, workers’ compensation, premises liability claims, dangerous or defective products,00 medical malpractice, and related Plaintiff’s tort litigation. He was born in Miami, Florida. He graduated from Kennesaw State University where he received a B.B.A. in Finance and Economics. After a first career in banking, he earned his J.D. degree from Atlanta John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, Georgia.

Member: Mr. Stone holds membership in the State Bar of Georgia and the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. He is admitted to practice before all Georgia Superior, State, Probate, and Magistrate Courts. He is a member of Kennesaw Lodge No. 33, F & A. M., and a member of Pi Kappa Phi fraternity. Mr. Stone sits on the Board of Directors for the non-profit children’s charity, Lekotek of Georgia, founded in 1983, which has been helping families of all incomes and ethnicities whose children have physical and/or cognitive disabilities.

No matter how many years a lawyer has practiced, there is no end to the need for exposure to bright new ideas from the best lawyers around the United States.

Over the past year, I had the opportunity to serve as chair of the Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway and Premises Liability Section of the American Association for Justice (AAJ). The largest section of AAJ, it encompasses the work of most “meat and potatoes” personal injury and wrongful death lawyers in America.

The section includes over 2,500 trial lawyers in all 50 states and specialized litigation groups on trucking litigation, bus litigation, traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal cord injury (SCI), motorcycle litigation, bicycle litigation, resorts torts litigation and inadequate security litigation. The section and its litigation groups have active listservs for exchange of bright ideas.

Having worked for decades in all of these areas of personal injury litigation, chairing the section for a year was like a year of graduate school in my practice area.

After I became chair last year in Montreal, we sponsored national continuing legal education programs in New Orleans and Los Angeles, and I was moderator of an advocacy seminar at Boca Raton.  Presentations in our programs in the past year in seminars at Montreal, Boca Raton, New Orleans and Los Angeles included:

• Accident Investigation and Reconstruction in Motor Vehicle Cases
• Bus Cases Are Different From Auto Cases: Investigation and Evidence
• Cross-Examination of A Defense Medical Examiner, With Rules Of The Road™
• Daubert Motions In Motor Vehicle And Premises Cases
• Industry Standards: Evidence of Negligence in Premises Liability Cases
• Investigation and Discovery in a Sexual Assault Case
• Liability and Causation Defenses in the Typical Auto Case
• Rules Of The Road for Security and Violent Crime Cases
• Trying Better, Faster, And Cheaper!
• Twenty-Minute Auto Wreck Case Voir Dire
• Why I Handle Negligent Security Cases
• Greyhound’s “Most Precious Cargo”
• Making Small Cases Big Cases
• Eliminating the Soft Tissue Myth: Spine Injuries Are Serious
• Deposition
• Practicing In Multiple States
• Using Social Network Sites in Trucking and Motor Carrier Cases
• Trying High-Profile Motor Vehicle and Premises Cases
• Self-Driving Cars and Crash Avoidance Systems: The Future of Car Crashes
• Truck Crash Litigation For The Car Crash Lawyer
• Safe Or Scary: Negligent Security In Schools, Colleges, And Day Care
• Effects And Ethics Of Social Media In A Personal Injury Case
• Taking Down The Defense Medical Examiner
• How To Zealously Represent Victims Of Sexual Assaults While Protecting Your Client
• Auto Defect Cases: The Future Of Your Auto Practice

_____________________

Ken Shigley is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway and Premises Liability Section, and a board certified civil trial attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy. His statewide law practice is based in Atlanta.  Ken Shigley is a candidate for election to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2018.

Every summer thousands of metro Atlanta residents take to the surrounding lakes in boats. And every summer we see fresh cases of boating accidents, often collisions between watercraft in which someone is drinking alcohol, often at night, killing or injuring people involved. Boating under the influence is a major hazard on Georgia lakes.

Last July on Lake Lanier, a fishing boat collided with a pontoon boat at night, immediately causing the deaths of two young brothers.The operator of the fishing boat failed a field sobriety test and refused to take a blood alcohol test. He was charged with boating under the influence, first-degree homicide by vessel, refusing to render aid and several other offenses. This week Hall County Superior Court Judge Kathy Gosselin denied a defense motion to dismiss those charges.

This incident, among others, helped prod the Georgia General Assembly to pass legislation

earlier this year to lower the blood alcohol limit for boat operators to 0.08 gr/%, the same for regular motor vehicles on the roads. Governor Nathan Deal, who is from Gainesville on Lake Lanier, is dead serious about cracking down on boating under the influence in order to save lives on Georgia’s lakes.

Nationally, according to the US Coast Guard, in 2012 some 4515 recreational boating accidents caused 651 deaths and 3000 injuries. The fatality rate was 5.4 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels. The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, which deals with accidental injury risks as well as communicable diseases,  says alcohol use affects judgment, vision, balance, and coordination, is involved in about a third of all recreational boating fatalities, and is just as dangerous as driving under the influence on land.

Georgia boaters should study the Georgia boating safety rules including those on unsafe operation, accidents and casualties, and alcohol, take a boating safety course and generally increase their awareness of water safety and boating safety issues.

Unfortunately for victims, Georgia law still lags on financial responsibility for boating, as insurance is not required for a boat license. That may be an issue for legislators to consider in the future.  However, smart boat owners carry liability insurance for their boats and personal water craft. Representation of boating accident victims requires knowledgeable counsel who can make a thorough exploration of all insurance coverage possibilities.

———–

Ken Shigley is past president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12), is double board certified in civil trial advocacy and civil pretrial advocacy by the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification, published a book on trial preparation, and has a selective personal injury and wrongful death law trial practice based in Atlanta.

Supervised by the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, this commission will prepare reports to the governor outlining ideas for a statewide strategy to educate teen drivers on hazards such as drunken driving and texting and driving.

“No one can advise our state on how to reach teenagers better than teenagers,” said Harris Blackburn, director of the highway safety office.

The deadline for teen drivers to apply to serve on the commission is Sept. 20.

It has been a long time since I was a teen driver, though only a few years since my children were teen drivers. We tend to forget how different our skills and judgment were when we lacked experience behind the wheel. This is a good move to collect fresh insights from today’s teen drivers.

Having worked with Governor Deal’s team on the Criminal Justice Reform Council, I am confident that this is not just window dressing but a legitimate effort to find ways to improve the safety of teens on the roads.

———————————————————————

 Ken Shigley is immediate past president of the State Bar of Georgia and current chair of the board of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. Lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (West, 2010-12), he has an AV Preeminent rating in Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, double board certification in Civil Trial Advocacy and Civil Pretrial Advocacy from the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification (formerly National Board of Trial Advocacy). In addition, he is listed in Super Lawyers (Atlanta Magazine), Legal Elite (Georgia Trend) and Who’s Who in Law (Atlanta Business Chronicle). He currently serves on the Georgia Criminal Justice Reform Council.

The idea is to prevent the jury from mixing sympathy for the plaintiff with determination of fault.

Over the years I have had mixed results in dealing with that issue, with both sides arguing on the basis of court decisions in other jurisdictions, as there has been no definitive Georgia law on point.

Now the Supreme Court of Georgia, in an opinion written by Justice David Nahmias, has resolved the issue. The case involved a child with spastic quadriplegia due to cerebral palsy, allegedly due to obstetrical malpractice at her birth. Kesterson v. Jarrett, — S.E.2d —-, 2012 WL 2203450, Ga., June 18, 2012 (NO. S11G0590).

It is a long and scholarly opinion to which I cannot easily do justice in a brief blog post, but here are a couple of brief excerpts:

Under the longstanding law of Georgia, the parts to a lawsuit have a fundamental right to be present in court during the trial of their case. The issue presented in this appeal is whether a party may be denied that right and excluded from the courtroom because her physical and mental condition may evoke undue sympathy from the jury and thereby improperly prejudice the other party. This appears to be a question of first impression for Georgia’s appellate courts, likely because exclusion of a party from trial for this reason is such an exceptional event in this State. . .

We conclude . . . that a party may not be excluded from her own trial simply because her physical and mental condition may evoke sympathy, even under these circumstances. Instead, trial courts can and should address the risk of undue sympathy using jury instructions and other common and time-tested means of ensuring that both parties receive a fair trial, without infringing on the parties’ right to be present. Accordingly, we reverse. …

Now that the right is established to have the mentally incompetent plaintiff in the courtroom at all phases of trial in Georgia state courts, the next question is what impact that will have on trial tactics of both plaintiff and defense lawyers.

In medical malpractice trials, where juror sympathy often aligns with the defendant doctors who win about 80% of the time, it might not make much difference. In the Kesterson case, the child was present at the beginning of jury selection and once during medical testimony in the liability phase. I can only speculate on whether the exclusion of the child for most of the liability phase of the bifurcated trial really made a difference in the outcome.

While the child’s appearances were brief, some plaintiffs’ trial consultants counsel limiting exposure of such a plaintiff to brief times in order to maintain the shock value and prevent jurors from becoming hardened to the plaintiff’s condition.

The “rules of the road” strategy widely promoted by trial consultants today requires focus on the safety rules and their violation by the defendant prior to talking much about damages. This is the reverse of the practice a generation ago in which plaintiff lawyers would start out with talk about how badly the plaintiff was injured. Only after establishing the importance of all the safety rules the defendant violated, according to this theory, does the plaintiff’s lawyer have psychological permission from the jury to go into discussion of damages.

The defense lawyer who moves for bifurcation of trial under these circumstances may lead even the less sophisticated plaintiff’s lawyer into inadvertently adopting the “rules of the road” strategy rather than blatantly pandering to sympathy from the beginning.

Perhaps some defense lawyers, knowing that they cannot exclude the catastrophically brain damaged plaintiff from the courtroom during the liability phase, will reconsider the strategy of moving to bifurcate liability and damage phases. In so doing, they might lure plaintiff lawyers into  alienating jurors though overt appeals to sympathy by keeping the plaintiff in the courtroom for the entire trial. Jurors are pretty smart cookies who can easily resent such pandering.

And perhaps some plaintiffs’ lawyers will voluntarily choose to bring in the catastrophically injured plaintiff only briefly in the early stages of trial, preserving the shock value for perhaps the explanation of a life care plan in support of a large damages number near the end of the trial.

Even though we can keep in the courtroom for the entire trial a spastic quadriplegic with no mental capacity to assist the lawyer, that does not mean we should.

I do not expect any favoritism from anyone as cases must be decided on their merits.  But if a friend or family member has a catastrophic injury or wrongful death case, would it be smarter to hire a lawyer based on a sleazy TV ad or to hire one who has recognized credentials and is known to decision makers?

Whether you choose me or someone else, by all means choose a serious lawyer for any serious case. Understand that the lawyers who spend millions on TV ads operate settlement mills, never take cases to trial, and insurance companies know they will generally settle for 10% of fair case value.

12. Video recording of defendant depositions.

A party may videotape any deposition upon notice that it will be so recorded. OCGA 9-11-30 (b)(4); FRCP 30 (b)(3). A deposition of a party may be used by any adverse party for any purpose, including substantive evidence, without any foundation that the party is unavailable to testify, including reading or playing video of portions in the case in chief, not merely for impeachment. OCGA § 9-11-32(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(2); Griffin v. Bankston, 295 Ga.App. 387, 391, 671 S.E.2d 873, 877 (2008).  See also,   State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lincow, 715 F.Supp.2d 617, (E.D.Pa.,2010); Northfield Ins. Co. v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2003 WL 25948971 (C.D.Cal.,2003); In re McLaren, 136 B.R. 705 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio,1992); Roark v. Rydell, 174 Ohio App.3d 186, 881 N.E.2d 333 (Ohio App. 1 Dist., 2007); Devenyns v. Hartig, 983 P.2d 63 (Colo.App.,1998); State v Metz, 241 A.D.2d 192, 671 N.Y.S.2d 79 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,1998); Matter of the Adoption of N.A.P., 23 Kan.App.2d 257, 930 P.2d 609 (Kan.App.,1996).

Therefore, in any substantial case give notice of video recording of defendant depositions, and request synchronization of stenographic transcript and video in DVT format that may be easily edited on your computer. Be extremely specific in communicating to the court reporter and videographer the request for synchronized video and transcript. Not less than a month before trial, prepare video clips of adverse parties to play in the case in chief at trial.

———————-

Bar committee OKs rule change
Public defenders in same circuit would be allowed to represent co-defendants under proposed amendment

The State Bar of Georgia’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures Committee on Wednesday unanimously approved a rule change that would allow public defenders in the same circuit to represent co-defendants unless specific conflicts of interest are identified.

The proposed amendment to the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct on imputed disqualification, also known as Rule 1.10, states: “(d) A lawyer representing a client of a public defender office shall not be disqualified under this rule because of the representation by the office of another client in the same or a substantially related matter unless there is a conflict as determined by Rules 1.7, 1.8(f) or 1.9,” which determine conflicts of interest, according to Bar President Kenneth L. Shigley.

Backers of the amendment hope it serves as a compromise in a debate that has burned hot since April 2010, when the bar approved a formal advisory opinion prohibiting intra-circuit representation of indigent criminal co-defendants. Critics of that opinion, which is pending review by the state Supreme Court, said it would result in higher costs for the cash-strapped indigent defense system as more expensive outside lawyers would need to be hired to resolve conflicts.

But some lawyers questioned whether the proposed amendment would have any significant effect.

On Wednesday, Shigley said the new rules change allowing intracircuit representation of co-defendants should help public defender offices handling cases with multiple defendants where there is only a potential conflict.”The proposed amendment to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10 is a measured, moderate approach to representation of multiple defendants in the public defender context,” Shigley said in a written statement. “It recognizes the need for practical flexibility in administration of the statewide public defender system, without diminishing lawyers’ ethical standards or defendants’ rights to vigorous, conflict-free representation.”

. . . .

The proposed amendment will go to the bar’s Executive Committee, which is scheduled to meet on Oct. 6 in Macon. Then, it would need the approval of the bar’s Board of Governors, which will convene on Oct. 29 at Jekyll Island, and finally the state Supreme Court before going into effect.

The state high court agreed to review the formal advisory opinion last year, but in August it delayed any decision until January. Members of the bar, as well as the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, began publicly discussing a rules change that would have exempted public defenders from the conflict rules applied to private firms late this summer.

Georgia Public Defender Standards Council Director W. Travis Sakrison spoke against the formal advisory opinion during Wednesday’s hearing of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures Committee.

According to Sakrison, the formal advisory opinion would require all public defender offices to divest themselves immediately of all co-defendants in cases where there may be a potential conflict. That rule would balloon the number of conflict cases and drain the public defender system of resources, he said. The estimated cost of finding new conflict counsel would have required the GPDSC to ask the Legislature for millions more in its budget, he said.

Instead, many circuit public defenders wanted their offices to have the ability to represent co-defendants up until the point an actual conflict arose, as long as proper ethical screens, such as separate computers and filing areas, were in place the entire time. And then, if there were an actual conflict, the public defender office could retain one of the co-defendants.

But supporters of the formal advisory opinion said the opinion supported the existing rules, which already outline conflicts and are meant to ensure adequate representation of indigent criminal defendants—a statement the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures Committee chairman, John G. Haubenreich, agreed with on Wednesday.” . . . .

On Friday, July 1, a new state law went into effect, requiring car and truck drivers to keep at least 3 feet of distance from bicycles when passing them on the road.  Biking clubs across the state are holding group rides over the Fourth of July weekend to raise awareness among motorists.

But on Monday, July 4, in Sandy Springs, a man was riding his bike along with another bicyclist on Roswell Road near Hightower Trail  when he was hit from behind.

This sad coincidence caught my attention for several reasons:

• My daughter and her boyfriend are training this summer on roads around Rochester, NY,  for the Syracuse Triathlon in September, so bike safety is a subject near and dear to my heart. (I just bought her a new bike computer this weekend.)
• When I recently tried a case in LaGrange, a member of the jury pool was president of the local bike club. She and her husband had been struck by the protruding mirror of a truck while on a group bike ride, very seriously injuring him.
• Bike clubs frequently take a route for group rides that comes right by our subdivision, so  I encounter them at least 2 or 3 times a week.
• Every morning upon arrival at my office building I see bicyle commuters arriving, and going into the gym to shower and change.  They all ride from neighborhoods east of my Midtown office, where streets are more bicycle friendly. Thinking that could be a good fitness routine, and maybe even respond to my daughter’s challenge to train for a geezer triathlon someday, I have studied the routes that one could take on a bicyclefrom Sandy Springs to Midtown.  Sadly,  since crossings of Peachtree Creek are very limited, and there are no bicycle lanes on Peachtree Road, it appears there is no safe and practical bicycle route. The new state law would provide cold comfort to my family if a commuter on a cell phone did not see me even with a flashing strobe light on my back. (If someone has found a safe bicycle commuting route from Sandy Springs to Midtown, please tell me!)

There is a body of research on conspicuity  (visibility) in bike accidents, dealing probably more with motorcycles than bicycles but applicable to both.  Frequently, motorists can look right at a bike and not see it, while bike riders tend to assume that if they can see a car the driver can see them. That can be a fatal mistake.

I hope that bicycle clubs and the Path Foundation can someday succeed in securing safe bike lanes and off-road bicycle trails to make Atlanta more amenable to bicycle commuters, but we don’t  have that yet.  A right of way statute is no substitute for nonexistent bicycle lanes and trails.

According to an article by Ariel Hart in today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Georgia Department of Transportation is considering three new intersection designs to relieve traffic congestion for minimal cost. The ideas are intriguing but I wonder how Georgia drivers will adjust to these unfamiliar designs.

• Diverging Diamond design, planned initially for the Ashford-Dunwoody Road exit on I-285, will will make traffic in both directions cross over to the left side of the road as it approaches the bridge over the interstate. After the bridge, it crosses back to the right, so that drivers who want to turn left will  be in the far left lane. Originating in France, it has been implemented once in the U.S., in Missouri. Here are an aerial view and a driver’s view of a diverging diamond intersection in operation. Popular Science sings its praises. But as with any unfamiliar traffic design feature, crystal clear signage to inform drivers of what’s coming is absolutely critical.
• Continuous flow intersection  design (CFI), planned for intersections in Gwinnett and Dawson counties, is also called a crossover displaced left-turn (XDL). This innovation is an at-grade intersection that moves the turning vehicles, conflicting with the through-movements (to the left where traffic drives on the right, and vice-versa), out of the main intersection. Here is an animation of how a continuous flow intersection works.
• Roundabouts are old news in Europe but have just been catching on in the US. Also known as a “traffic circle”, it is a type of circular junction in which road traffic must travel in one direction around a central island. Signs usually direct traffic entering the circle to slow down and give the right of way to drivers already in the circle. The benefit, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, is a 40% reduction in crashes, since roundabouts make traffic slow down and eliminate left turns entirely by sending all intersection traffic in a counter-clockwise circle. Roundabouts take some getting used to.

With good lights and signage adequate to overcome the problems of unfamiliar and counter-intuitive design, perhaps these innovations can help reduce accidents and congestion. I just hope GDOT doesn’t skimp on signage!

Ken Shigley, author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice, is  a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and has been listed as a “Super Lawyer” (Atlanta Magazine), among the “Legal Elite” (Georgia Trend Magazine), and in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. He practices law at the Atlanta law firm of Chambers, Aholt & Rickard, and has broad experience in catastrophic personal injury, spinal cord injury, wrongful death, products liability,  brain injury and burn injury cases. He is also president-elect of the State Bar of Georgia. Ken and  This post is subject to our ethical disclaimer.

Yesterday, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the two years statute of limitation for personal injury is (“tolled”) until the traffic court case against the person at fault is concluded.

That means that the two year clock doesn’t start running until the traffic charge arising from an auto accident is disposed of, one way or another, in court. I have seen cases where the traffic charges languished on court dockets for as much as four years. In those instances, the injury victim could have up to six years to file suit rather than only two.

And defendants who manage to stall resolution of their prosecutions for serious traffic offenses do so at the risk of extending the time in which they can be sued.

A Georgia statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99, says the statute of limitations for any tort action a victim brings over an alleged crime is tolled from the date of the alleged crime until the prosecution of the crime becomes final or is terminated, as long as that time does not exceed six years.

The Supreme Court held that “the plain language of OCGA § 9-3-99 would encompass a violation of a Uniform Rule of the Road. To impose a more stringent definition of ‘crime’ within the context of the statute would render superfluous its language that the statute of limitation is tolled from the date of the alleged crime ‘or the act giving rise to such action in tort’ until the prosecution or other termination of such crime ‘or act.’”

Chief Justice Hunstein wrote that the court had to reach the result it did notwithstanding the significant impact the decision will have. “If the Legislature had intended to limit the application of OCGA § 9-3-99 to tort actions arising from only certain types of crimes, e.g., felonies or specific intent crimes, it certainly could have done so. It did not, and any undesirable result is a matter properly addressed by the General Assembly rather than the courts.”

I would not generally advise such delay in filing suit or taking a case to trial. If a felony traffic charge is pending against the defendant, it can be a tactical advantage for the plaintiff if the defendant repeatedly invokes the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in front of the jury in the civil trial, and the judge then instructs the jury that they may infer that a truthful answer would not have helped the defendant.

And delay can often result in loss of evidence and witnesses’ loss of memory.

More and more, I’m inclined to file suit promptly when the injury is clearly catastrophic, and move aggressively to complete necessary investigation and discovery.

However, when people do wander in late, or where it is essential to compel answers to questions in disvoery, yesterday’s court decision allows us one more arrow in the quiver.

Following is a copy of the Georgia Supreme Court unanimous decision

Benke v. Parker

Nos. S08G2078, S08G2082
Sept. 28, 2009.

HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice.

1.On April 27, 2005, Patricia Parker was injured when the car in which she was a passenger was struck from the rear and overturned by a vehicle driven by Alan Beneke; Beneke was cited for following too closely. See OCGA § 40-6-49. Parker filed a personal injury action against Beneke on May 11, 2007. The trial court initially granted Beneke’s motion for summary judgment based on the expiration of the two-year statute of limitation, see OCGA § 9-3-33, but on motion for reconsideration vacated its order and denied summary judgment. In finding that the complaint was timely-filed because the statute of limitation had been tolled until Beneke posted a cash bond disposing of the traffic citation on May 19, 2005, the trial court relied on OCGA § 9-3-99, which provides that

[t]he running of the period of limitations with respect to any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the victim of an alleged crime which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of such alleged crime committed in this state shall be tolled from the date of the commission of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action in tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated, provided that such time does not exceed six years.

In eneke v. Parker, 293 Ga.App. 186 (667 S.E.2d 97) (2008), the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment, but vacated the portion of the trial court’s order ruling that Beneke had committed a “crime” as a matter of law so as to bring OCGA § 9-3-99 into play, holding that this question must be resolved by a jury. See Beneke, supra at 189-190(1). We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a “crime” within the context of OCGA § 9-3-99 must be a “crime” that satisfies the definition set forth in OCGA § 16-2-1(a),^N1i.e., one that involves criminal intent or criminal negligence. For the reasons that follow, we hold that it did so err.

FN1. OCGA § 16-2-1(a) provides that “[a] ‘crime’ is a violation of a statute of this state in which there is a joint operation of an act or omission to act and intention or criminal negligence.”

[T]he fundamental rules of statutory construction … require us to construe a statute according to its terms, to give words their plain and ordinary meaning, and to avoid a construction that makes some language mere surplusage. [Cits.] At the same time, we must seek to effectuate the intent of the legislature. [Cit.]
 Slakman v. Continental Casualty Co., 277 Ga. 189, 191 (587 S.E.2d 24) (2003). A violation of one of the Uniform Rules of the Road, such as the rule that a driver must not follow another vehicle too closely, is a misdemeanor, OCGA § 40-6-1(a), and a misdemeanor is “any crime other than a felony.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 16-1-3(9). Thus, the plain language of OCGA § 9-3-99 would encompass a violation of a Uniform Rule of the Road. To impose a more stringent definition of “crime” within the context of the statute would render superfluous its language that the statute of limitation is tolled from the date of the alleged crime “or the act giving rise to such action in tort” until the prosecution or other termination of such crime “or act.”

2 The Court of Appeals properly affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Beneke. However, no factual determination need be made as to whether Beneke acted with criminal intent or criminal negligence, i.e., whether his violation of OCGA § 40-6-49 constituted a crime as defined in OCGA § 16-2-1(a), in order to apply OCGA § 9-3-99 here. We thus reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion holding otherwise. Like the Court of Appeals, we recognize that our holding in this case will have a significant impact on personal injury actions arising out of vehicle accidents by tolling the statute of limitation in those situations where a traffic citation is issued. See Beneke, supra, 293 Ga.App. at 191. Nonetheless, we are constrained by the language of the statute to reach this result. If the Legislature had intended to limit the application of OCGA § 9-3-99 to tort actions arising from only certain types of crimes, e.g., felonies or specific intent crimes, it certainly could have done so. It did not, and any undesirable result is a matter properly addressed by the General Assembly rather than the courts.

 Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur

Ken Shigley is an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, whose practice focuses on representing people who are catastrophically injured, and families of those killed. Mr. Shigley has extensive experience representing parties in trucking and bus accidents, products liability, catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, brain injury, spinal cord injury and burn injury cases. He is a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy,  and has been listed as a “Super Lawyer” (Atlanta Magazine), among the “Legal Elite” (Georgia Trend Magazine), and in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers (Martindale).  Currently he is treasurer of the 41,000 member State Bar of Georgia and a national board member of the American Association for Justice Interstate Trucking Litigation Group.

 For criteria to be considered in selecting an attorney, see The Smart Consumer’s Guide to Hiring a Great Lawyer.

In a scene reminiscent of the 1982 Paul Newman movie, “The Verdict,” the jury after three hours of deliberation Thursday afternoon sent a note to the judge asking if they were limited by the amount the plaintiff asked for.   In closing argument I had asked for a verdict of approximately $1.2 million for our client’s permanently disabling leg injury.  When we got that question from the jury, my first thought was that I don’t drink anywhere near enough to fit the Paul Newman role in the movie.

Today we won a $2,345,940.17 jury verdict against a Pennsylvania trucking company in the Superior Court of Gordon County, Calhoun, Georgia.  The verdict was broken down as follows: compensatory damages:  $1,742,845.70, attorney fees due to bad faith in the transaction, $580,948.57, expenses  of litigation $ 22,145.90.  Medical expenses were $112,228.  The highest offer from defendant’s insurance company before trial was $125,000, going up to $400,000 on third day of trial. This was nearly three times the highest previous verdict in the history of Gordon County.

The specificity of the figures, down to the penny, helps to refute any allegation that it was a random verdict by a “runaway jury.”  These jurors were all deeply conservative northwest Georgia folks who were determined to follow the law and the facts wherever they led, and to do the right thing.

It was a very good week.

Johnson v. Clarendon National Insurance Company, American Trans-Freight, LLC, ATF Trucking, LLC, ATF Logistics, LLC, and Robert W. Carnley, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 04-CV-43532

The Shigley Law Firm  represents plaintiffs in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases statewide in Georgia, and in other states subject to the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules in each state. Ken Shigley was designated as a “SuperLawyer” in Atlanta Magazine and one of the “Legal Elite” in Georgia Trend Magazine. He is a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Chair of the Southeastern Motor Carrier Liability Institute and former chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute. He particularly focuses on cases arising from truck wrecks and accidents (tractor trailers truck wrecks, semi truck wrecks,18 wheeler truck wrecks, big rig truck wrecks, log truck wrecks, dump truck wrecks.

The Georgia Driver’s License Manual, at page 40, paragraph 4,  includes the following instruction:

When making a left turn at an intersection, alley or driveway, yield the right-of-
way to all traffic from the opposite direction, then proceed when it is safe to do so.

Georgia Code § 40-6-71 states the legal rule:

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.

The Georgia Pattern Jury Instructions summarize the rule as follows:

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is within the intersection or so close to it as to constitute an immediate hazard.

This rule is  important because we have to have clear rules about who has the right of way on the road, so there is no ambiguity about whose turn it is to proceed at an intersection.  It’s important because when a driver chooses to turn across a traffic lane without yielding to vehicles coming from the opposite directions, it can cause injury and sometimes even death to innocent people.   Ironically, it is seldom the driver of the car turning left that is hurt badly because he or she is shielded from the impact that happens on the passenger side of his or her car.   

And yet we continue to see drivers flinging themselves and their vehicles across oncoming traffic lanes — like possums crossing a country road  — without even looking at oncoming vehicles.  Too often it is a driver or passenger in an oncoming vehicle who is injured while trying desperately to avoid hitting the vehicle that blithely turns across their lane.

The Shigley Law Firm  represents plaintiffs in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases statewide in Georgia, and in other states subject to the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules in each state. Ken Shigley was designated as a “SuperLawyer” in Atlanta Magazine and one of the “Legal Elite” in Georgia Trend Magazine. He is a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Chair of the Southeastern Motor Carrier Liability Institute and former chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute. He particularly focuses on cases arising from truck wrecks and accidents (tractor trailers truck wrecks, semi truck wrecks,18 wheeler truck wrecks, big rig truck wrecks, log truck wrecks, dump truck wrecks.