Law Offices of Roger Ghai

Georgia Products Liability Attorneys — New Study Says IVC Filters May Be More Dangerous Than Previously Thought

 

A new study has just been released suggesting that IVC filters may be more dangerous and deadly than previously thought. Most medical complications from the filters occur when the filter fractures and break apart. However, the new study suggests fatal health risks NOT based on the fracturing of the filter. According to the study published by JAMA Open Network, an online medical research repository operated by the Journal of the American Medical Association, there is a previously undiscovered increased risk of dying within 30 days of having an IVC filter implanted; said risk is unrelated to the filter fracturing. See the study here.

IVC filters are small spider-like devices that are implanted to filter out blood clots that might reach a patient’s lungs or heart. The “spider-legs” are meant to “catch” the clots before they can reach the heart or lungs. Many IVC filters are intended to be removed after a certain amount of time; some are intended to be permanent. Both types are implanted when there is a risk of blood clots breaking free from the lower extremities and making their way to the heart and/or lungs. The filters are surgically implanted in the inferior vena cava (IVC) vein — thus the name IVC filter. The IVC is the largest vein in the body; in general, veins bring blood back to the lungs for re-oxygenation.

IVC filters are generally implanted for those who cannot take blood-thinning medications — in medical terms, those exhibiting a “contraindication to anticoagulation” — and for those with vein thrombosis and/or a pulmonary embolism and/or other conditions associated with venous thromboembolic disease.

Millions of patients have had IVC filters implanted. Statistics show that about 100,000 are implanted every year. But, there are serious problems with some of the filters. Indeed, thousands of patients have had medical complications and thousands of lawsuits have been filed. As noted above, the most common complications are fracturing or the dislodging of the filter. This is the most common claim made in the lawsuits. Fracturing occurs when pieces of the filter–the “spider legs”–break off. These pieces are then carried off by the blood to the heart or other parts of the body. These pieces can become embedded in the walls of the IVC, other veins or in the tissue of the heart muscle. More serious still is when the entire filter becomes dislodged. Again, the filter can become embedded in vein walls or other body tissues.

The new study indicates that filters are more dangerous than previously thought aside from the risks of fracturing and dislodgement. The researchers have called for more research to explain the results.

 

Georgia IVC Filter Litigation Attorneys — Background on the Study

 The study was conducted by a team of medical researchers led by Doctors Tyson E. Turner, Mohammed J. Saeed and Eric Novak from Washington University Medical Center in St. Louis. They reviewed medical records of 126,000 patients who had received IVC filter implants. They found that IVC filter implantation, in general, had benefits and aided in prolonging a patient’s life. As they phrased it, there is “… mortality benefit associated with IVC filter insertion.” This confirms and is consistent with many studies and clinical trials.

However, their study uncovered an increased mortality rate of IVC filter implantation of 18 percent. The authors conducted their study with the intent to try and remove what is called the “immortal time bias” which is not a research methodology bias limited to IVC filters. This bias is a well-known bias applicable to research with respect to any type of medical intervention. In medical research, the “immortal time bias” is the time interval between a patient being admitted to the hospital and the medical intervention under study — in our case, implantation of an IVC filter. According to the authors, the previous research has failed to account for this potential source of bias. In general, by failing to account for this possible bias, any medical research can erroneously skew the research results in favor of the medical intervention. That is, the bias can falsely confer a mortality prevention advantage to whatever intervention is being studied.

As noted, to date, most of the lawsuits that have been filed concerned filter fracturing and dislodgement. This new study raises a different concern suggesting that the filters are more dangerous than previously thought even if the filter does not fracture or become dislodged.

 

Georgia IVC Filter Litigation Attorneys — Study Suggests More Research Is Needed

 To be clear, the study — entitled “Association of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement for Venous Thromboembolic Disease and a Contraindication to Anticoagulation With 30-Day Mortality” — did not make the broad claim that IVC filter implantation causes death within 30 days. Rather, the claim is much more limited — that there is, based on a multivariate analysis, an unaccounted for 18 percent increase in 30-day mortality with respect to IVC filter implantation. The study did not offer an explanation for the correlation but, rather suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to explain the previously unrecognized risk.

IVC filters have been available and in use since the 1960s. And yet, according to the authors of the study, there remains a lack of complete and variable-controlled research on whether IVC filter use poses health and fatality dangers aside from fracturing.

 

Georgia IVC Litigation Attorneys: Contact the Roger Ghai Law Offices

 For more information, contact the Georgia medical device malpractice attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices Our attorneys can help if you or a loved one has been injured as a result of complication from an IVC filter implantation. As noted, thousands of personal injury and defective medical device cases have been filed here in Georgia and across the country against makers of IVC filters. Some of the cases have already gone to trial and juries have awarded significant compensation to those injuries and their families. Do not wait if you think you have a case. There are strict time deadlines.

The Roger Ghai Law Offices provides legal services for the residents of Cobb County including the communities of Kennesaw, Acworth, Marietta, and the surrounding areas. Click here to schedule your consultation.

Kennesaw Auto Accidents: Traumatic Brain Injury Can Double Chances of Suicide

TBI

Head, shoulder and brain injuries are common in vehicle crashes here in Kennesaw and in other parts of Georgia. Because of the differential masses of the various vehicles involved and because of the sudden-stop inertial forces involved, even so-called “minor” crashes can cause serious brain injuries — often labeled traumatic brain injury or TBI. If you have been in a car or truck accident that resulted in TBI, you are entitled to sue for compensation. This article will discuss some features and warning signs of TBI.

But, in addition to the well-known effects of TBI, a new study from Denmark has recently been published adding yet another potential cause of alarm: TBI can nearly double a person’s chance of suicide. We will discuss the new study below.

If a loved one has recently committed suicide following a vehicle collision, you should investigate whether TBI was involved and whether the suicide might have been caused by the TBI.

Kennesaw Auto Accident Lawyers: Traumatic Brain Injuries

 

TBI resulting from automobile wrecks are common. See a general report from CNN here. Based on 2013 statistics, motor vehicle crashes accounted for 14 percent of all TBIs that resulted in emergency room visits adding up to more than 2.5 million ER visits, nearly 300,000 hospitalizations, and nearly 50,000 deaths. See the CDC report here.

Most TBIs are caused by a force trauma — blunt or edged — to the head. But, TBI is common in the military and researchers have discovered that shock-waves can cause TBI even in the absence of an actual force trauma to the head or neck. In a similar fashion, whiplash can cause TBI in a car accident even in the absence of the head striking the steering wheel or anther hard surface in the interior of your car. The injury to the brain is caused by the brain itself being jammed and compressed against the bone of the skull. In an obvious way, a blow to the head will cause this, but whiplash-type motions can also cause the brain to be crushed against the interior of the skull. As noted, military researchers have discovered that blast compression waves will do the same thing. Thus, medically, TBI is possible flowing from any event that disrupts the normal functioning of your brain. In the non-military context, the leading cause of TBI is falling and the second leading cause is being hit by something or being thrown against something — exactly what happens to your head and body during a car wreck.

Symptoms of TBI include:

 

  • Losing consciousness — even briefly
  • Loss of vision or hearing
  • Dizziness
  • Loss of balance
  • Muscle impairment — mild to severe like paralysis
  • Memory loss
  • Personality disorders
  • Depression

You can read more about side effects on the website of the Mayo Clinic. The new study discussed below adds a new symptom: an increased chance of suicide.

Note that, so far, we have discussed TBI in terms of “closed-event-trauma.” But, of course, the most severe forms of TBI are caused by penetration injuries where there is structural damage to the brain and brain tissue. With respect to Kennesaw auto accidents, the most common skull-penetration-TBI is from glass piercing the skull bone when an occupant is ejected.

TBI is the general category of injury. A more specific list of TBI injuries includes brain contusions (bruises and tissue compression), concussions (stretched blood vessels causing nerve damage), diffuse axonal injuries (where bleeding, nerve and tissue tearing is caused by the brain being shaken) and structural damage to the brain caused by penetration. TBI is serious and if you have suffered from any of these symptoms following a crash or collision, you should seek medical attention.

Kennesaw Auto Accident Lawyers: TBI and Increased Chances of Suicide

 

As noted, a newly published study has linked TBI to a higher risk of suicide. See the study here.

The study was based on Danish medical records. The researchers — Danish physicians and medical researchers — reviewed medical records and studies to investigate any correlation between TBI and suicides. They based their study on 35 years of records involving 34,529 suicides. The researchers concluded that, compared with the general population without TBI, those with TBI had almost twice the increased risk of suicide (incident rate ratio of 1.90). The increased risk was based on two findings: one, they found a link between TBI and suicidal ideation — thinking about committing suicide — and, two, higher suicide rates correlated with more severe TBI and a greater number of hospital visits/medical procedures. The increased suicide risk was highest during the first six months following, in general, the event from which the TBI resulted.

As noted above, if you have been in a car or truck accident that resulted in TBI, you are entitled to sue for compensation from the person or persons who wrongfully caused the accident. In addition to the other physical damage caused to your body (such as broken bones), you can recover for the physical damage caused by TBI such as gray-matter and white-matter brain tissue atrophy and the precipitation or acceleration of neurodegeneration. Further, studies have shown that TBI events increase one’s risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and motor neuron disease. You should be compensated for these increased risks. Finally, if they exist, one is entitled to seek recovery for emotional and cognitive effects of TBI including post-traumatic stress disorder, postconcussive syndrome and any treatment necessary for increased suicidal ideation.

 

Kennesaw Auto Accidents Lawyers: Contact the Roger Ghai Law Offices

For more information, contact the Kennesaw accident and personal injury attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices If you or a loved one has been injured due to someone else’s careless, negligent or wrongful behavior, we are experienced and proven lawyers who can help you obtain the compensation to which you are entitled. We provide legal services for the residents of Cobb County including the communities of Kennesaw, Acworth, Marietta, and the surrounding areas. Click here to schedule your consultation.

Further Update On Roundup Litigation: Plaintiffs’ Expert Opinions Are Admissible

The active ingredient in Roundup herbicide — glyphosate — is alleged by various plaintiffs in many lawsuits around the country to be a carcinogen. In particular, the allegation is that exposure to glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”). In order to prevail in their lawsuits, the plaintiffs must provide evidence to a jury of many elements including the following:

  • That exposure to glyphosate can cause NHL
  • That a certain minimal level of exposure is necessary for glyphosate to cause NHL
  • That each plaintiff was exposed to glyphosate at the level sufficient to cause NHL

Evidence for each of these elements — and the other elements — must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, the jury must be convinced that it is more probable than not that (1) glyphosate can cause NHL, (2) that each plaintiff was exposed to enough glyphosate to cause NHL and (3) that each plaintiff contracted NHL because of their exposure to glyphosate (and not because of some exposure to some other condition that can cause NHL).

Causation is often the most contentious aspect of cases like the glyphosate litigation. The pending glyphosate cases are commonly known as product liability cases. In general, manufacturers and sellers of products cannot knowingly put into the stream of commerce dangerous products. If they do so, they can be held liable for the resulting injuries. In order to prove causation in a dangerous products liability cause, the plaintiffs must present expert testimony.

In the US District Court in northern California, hundreds of glyphosate cases have been consolidated for efficient judicial management. This allows the cases to proceed through the pre-trial stages with one judge establishing uniform decisions and rulings on various pre-trial issues and requests for rulings (motions). Recently, Monsanto and the other glyphosate manufacturers filed motions and papers challenging whether the plaintiffs’ various experts are qualified to give opinions with respect to glyphosate causing NHL. On July 10, 2018, a US District Court Judge ruled that, yes, the plaintiffs’ expert opinions that “… glyphosate can cause NHL at human-relevant doses …” are allowable and admissible. As such, the court ruled that the cases can proceed to the next stage. See here.

While this is a victory for the plaintiffs, the court expressed many misgivings about the plaintiffs’ evidence and raised many “red flags.” Thus, the defendants in the case can also view the ruling as a victory. In particular, the court noted that the question of admitting the expert opinions was “close” and also noted that the standard for admitting expert opinions is less than the standard needed to convince a jury.

This article provides further information below including discussion of what is called the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert opinions. If you or a loved one have been injured because of a dangerous product — such as potentially glyphosate — contact the experienced dangerous products litigators at the Roger Ghai Law Offices. If you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma resulting from exposure to glyphosate-containing products, you should call immediately.

Kennesaw Product Liability Litigators — Background on Glyphosate

 As noted, glyphosate is the key ingredient in Roundup which has been marketed by the Monsanto Corporation since the 1970s. Monsanto’s patent on glyphosate expired in the 1990s and now generic versions of Roundup are made by many companies. These herbicides containing glyphosate are used in large-scale farming and in small backyard gardens.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency does not currently consider glyphosate “likely to cause cancer.” The State of California recently listed glyphosate as a chemical “known in the State of California” to cause cancer and/or reproductive health problems. In 2015, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization examined studies related to glyphosate and concluded that the herbicide is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” See here.

Kennesaw Product Liability Litigators — The Daubert Standard for Admitting Expert Opinions

 As noted above, to win a dangerous products liability case, plaintiffs must provide expert opinions on the issue of causation. In general, there are two types of witnesses: fact witnesses and expert witnesses. Fact witnesses are those that testify concerning relevant things that they experienced such as “I used Roundup for 30 years in my backyard garden without using rubber gloves.” Expert witnesses, on the other hand, do not provide testimony about events, but rather testimony about technical and medical matters such as “exposure to glyphosate can cause NHL.” A regular person who has no medical or scientific training does not have enough education and experience to know whether glyphosate can cause NHL. Thus, on issues like this, an expert must be called to testify at trial.

That being said, not just any expert will do. As an example from medical malpractice cases, if the claim is that a heart doctor’s made a mistake during surgery that caused an to injury to the patient’s heart, you are not allowed to use the opinion of a foot doctor to show the malpractice. You must use a heart doctor to provide testimony against a heart doctor.

The judge serves as a gatekeeper with respect to questions of whether an expert is sufficiently qualified to testify and whether the expert is the “correct kind” of expert. In federal cases, this gatekeeping function is based on the federal rules of civil procedure and rules flowing from a US Supreme Court case called Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Experts can only testify if:

(1) the witness is qualified to testify about the topic(s) of his/her testimony — that is, has sufficient relevant education, training, experience, etc.

(2) the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the jury “to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”

(3) “the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data”

(4) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods” and

(5) “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”

Boiled down to its essence, an evaluation of whether an expert is allowed to testify comes down to whether the testimony is relevant and whether it is reliable.

In the glyphosate litigation, the court was asked to decide if the plaintiffs’ experts proposed testimony satisfied the Daubert standard — that is, were the expert qualified enough and was their methodology reliable enough for them to testify that glyphosate can cause NHL “… when people are exposed to the highest dose people might plausibly experience.” The court gave this example: “… for instance, a professional gardener who has applied Roundup without using protective equipment several times per week, many hours per day, for decades.” As noted, the court said “yes” although it was a “close question.” The court made it clear that the experts could not rely ONLY on the fact that the World Health Organization had concluded that glyphosate probably causes NHL. But, the plaintiffs’ various experts did not rely ONLY on that body of research. The experts also surveyed other studies and research and, in total, such was sufficient to satisfy the Daubert standard for admissibility.

Georgia Product Liability Litigators: Contact the Roger Ghai Law Offices

For more information, contact the Kennesaw products liability attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices Our attorneys can help if you — or a loved one —  has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers which might be connected to exposure to Roundup or other glyphosate-containing products. We provide legal services for the residents of Cobb County including the communities of Kennesaw, Acworth, Marietta and the surrounding areas. Click here to schedule your consultation.

 

 

Summer 2018 Update On IVC Filter Litigation: Bard Obtains Some Favorable Rulings In Hyde Bellwether Case

On July 26, 2018, C.D. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) obtained some favorable rulings in the Hyde bellwether case in the ongoing litigation concerning its various inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters. See Opinion here.

The ruling is notable because the judge dismissed the failure to warn claims. In March 2018, a jury awarded a different plaintiff — Sherr-Una Booker — $3.6 million in damages on her failure to warn claim. In addition, the next bellwether cases have been chosen and tentative trial dates have been set.

This article provides some general information on the status of the ongoing litigation, the bellwether cases and of the partial summary judgment rendered in the Hyde case.

Georgia Products Liability Attorneys — IVC Litigation: Arizona Venue and Bellwether Cases

 Thousands of patients across the country have filed personal injury claims against Bard alleging that Bard’s IVC filters are/were defective and caused serious injury or death. The federal cases have been consolidated before one Judge — Hon. David G. Campbell — in the US federal district court in Arizona. Although the cases themselves might be brought under various other state laws — such as Georgia statutes and case law — the trials are being conducted in Arizona.

Further, as is customary in complex multidistrict litigation, certain cases are chosen as “bellwether” cases. These bellwether cases are scheduled to go to trial first and are chosen by the judge with consultation from the parties and attorneys. These bellwether cases help the parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their various individual cases which, in turn, help with settlement negotiations. Note that BOTH the judge’s rulings and the verdicts rendered by the juries are important. The rulings and verdicts provide realistic expectations for the parties and, as noted, this helps with potential settlements.

Two bellwether cases have gone to trial: Booker and Jones. In June-July 2018, the next four bellwether cases were chosen: Carol Kruse (September 2018), Lisa Hyde (November 2018), Debra Mulkey (February 2019) and Debra/James Tinlin (May 2019).

The choice of Tinlin as the sixth bellwether case provides a good example of how the bellwether cases are chosen. In June 2018, Bard’s attorneys proposed that the sixth bellwether case be the one filed by the King plaintiff. However, the plaintiffs’ lawyers objected and proposed the Tinlin plaintiff. The judge evaluated the arguments put forward by the various sets of lawyers in court filings and chose the Tinlin case for the following reasons:

  • The five bellwether cases chosen so far involve the Bard IVC filters known as the G2 filter (Booker and Kruse) and the Bard Eclipse filter (Jones and Mulkey) — there is a disagreement about whether Hyde received a G2 or an Eclipse
  • So far, no bellwether case involves a third type of Bard filter called the Recovery filter
  • The Judge stated that it was important to have a Recovery filter case among the bellwether cases
  • The King case involved a G2 filter
  • The Tinlin case involved a Bard Recovery filter
  • While the facts of the King case involved perforation and an unsuccessful retrieval attempt (important fact patterns for many of the cases), the judge felt it was more important that the sixth bellwether be a Recovery filter case

For these reasons, the Tinlin case was chosen as the sixth bellwether case. (As an aside, various cases involve three other Bard filters: the Meridian, the Denali and the Simon Nitinol (“SNF”). No bellwether cases are scheduled with respect to the first two. There are about 100 cases filed with respect to the SNF. Those 100 or so cases have been removed from the multi-district litigation and will no longer be part of the Arizona venue consolidation. Those cases will probably be returned to their local federal courts or might be consolidated differently.)

Georgia Products Liability Attorneys — Hyde Partial Summary Judgment

 As noted, on July 26, 2018, Judge Campbell granted partial summary judgment in favor of Bard in the Hyde bellwether case. This means that part of the case was dismissed.

The plaintiff in that case — Lisa Hyde — had a Bard G2X filter implanted in 2011. In May 2014, a CT scan showed that the filter had tilted, perforated the IVC wall, and fractured, with one strut lodged in the right ventricle of her heart. Mrs. Hyde underwent surgery in August 2014 during which the filter and fractured strut were removed.

Mrs. Hyde and her husband assert various claims against Bard including:

  • Failure to warn
  • Strict liability design defects
  • Negligent design defects
  • Failure to recall
  • Misrepresentation and concealment
  • Breach of implied warranty
  • Negligence per se
  • Fraudulent trade practices
  • Loss of consortium
  • Punitive damages

Judge Campbell held that Wisconsin law would apply to the Hyde case. After evaluation of the arguments made in court filings, the judge dismissed — on summary judgment — the claims for failure to warn, failure to recall, misrepresentation, concealment, and fraud, and breach of implied warranty. The Hyde case will go to trial on the claims for strict liability design defect, negligent design, negligence per se, loss of consortium and punitive damages.

As noted above, dismissal of the failure to warn claims is important since Bard lost on a failure to warn claim in March 2018 (“Booker case”). In the Booker case, the applicable law was Georgia law. However, for Hyde, the applicable law is Wisconsin law. Under Wisconsin law, there is a different standard for causation for failure to warn. Under Wisconsin law, a plaintiff must prove that the failure to warn was a “but-for” cause of the injury. This requires proof that some behavior would have changed or some different choice would have been made had the warning been different. See Kurer v. Parke, Davis & Co., 679 N.W.2d 867 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (“A plaintiff who has established both a duty and a failure to warn must also establish causation by showing that, if properly warned, he or she would have altered behavior and avoided injury.”).

In the Hyde case, Judge Campbell ruled that Mrs. Hyde did not have any evidence that she (and/or her doctor) would have made an alternative choice if the Bard written warnings/disclosures had been different. As the court stated: “Plaintiffs argue at length that Bard’s warnings for the G2X were inadequate, but present no evidence or argument that an adequate warning would have prevented use of the Bard filter in this case.” This ruling was based largely on what Mrs. Hyde’s doctor — Dr. Henry — stated during his deposition including the following:

  • Henry testified that he did not remember Mrs. Hyde specifically or the filter implanted
  • He had no independent recollection of her specific procedure, his thought processes leading to the surgery, why that filter was chosen or what may have been explained to Mrs. Hyde regarding potential risks and treatment options
  • He did not know whether he would have considered information about complication rates among filters in making the treatment decision for Mrs. Hyde
  • He stated that he “trusted” FDA-cleared and FDA-approved devices and gave more credence to FDA clearance than to claims made by manufacturers
  • Had he know about certain studies with respect to migration rates of filters, he did not know if that would have changed his treatment decision(s)

From this and other evidence, Judge Campbell ruled that Mrs. Hyde had no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Dr. Henry would have made a different treatment decision had the Bard warnings/disclosures been different. As such, the judge held that the failure to warm claims would NOT go before the jury in September. But, as noted, Mrs. Hyde’s case will still go to trial, but on the other remaining legal claims.

Georgia IVC Litigation Attorneys: Contact the Roger Ghai Law Offices

For more information, contact the Kennesaw medical device malpractice attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices Our attorneys can help if you or a loved one has been injured as a result of complication from an IVC filter implantation. We provide legal services for the residents of Cobb County including the communities of Kennesaw, Acworth, Marietta and the surrounding areas. Click here to schedule your consultation.

Acworth Truck/Auto Wrecks Caused by Lost Loads

Acworth crash attorney

Every driver in Acworth has seen them on the roads and highways: cars, trucks and vehicles with improperly secured loads. Sometimes, it is a pair of mattresses “tied” to the roof of a car threatening to fly up from the wind shear. Or a metal recycler in a rusty dented pick-up truck overloaded with junk, any piece of which might fall out at the next pothole. Or someone with plywood or lumber hanging out of their trunk dragging along the pavement. Or a young couple with a happy holiday Christmas tree hanging precariously to one side of the car roof. Most of us steer very clear and very wide of such vehicles and maybe even smile a bit since we have been that driver once a long time ago.

But in truth, improperly secured loads can be quite dangerous, particularly when large trucks and flatbeds are involved. Probably no one has ever been killed by a flying mattress or a falling Christmas tree, but that is not the case with loads that tumble from a truck. In July 2018, a Minnesota mother and her daughter were both killed when an 800-pound boulder came loose from a flatbed truck and crashed down into their car. Since the wreck, the driver of the truck has been arrested and will be charged in the deaths. See news report here.

In this article, we discuss legal principles of such an accident here in Georgia. Under Georgia law, the surviving members of the family would be absolutely entitled to sue for wrongful death. If you or a family member are injured in a wreck or collision here in Acworth, you are entitled to be fully compensated for any and all injuries including wrongful death. You will need to hire dedicated and proven Acworth automobile accident attorneys like those at the Roger Ghai Law Offices.

 

Acworth Auto Accidents Attorneys – Legal Principles Under Georgia Law

 In Acworth and in Georgia generally, a person injured or killed in a wreck or collision can sue to recover money damages under the law of negligence. In general, Georgia drivers owe a duty to care to other drivers and others using the roads and highway to make sure that they driving safely and in such a manner as to avoid injuring others. Among these duties are to keep a careful watch, obey traffic signals and laws, use their horn when necessary as a warning, stop for emergency vehicles, etc. With respect to loads and objects being carried on vehicles, Georgia statute imposes the following duty:

“No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any public road unless such vehicle is constructed or loaded or covered so as to prevent any of its load from dropping, escaping, or shifting in such a manner as to:

(1) Create a safety hazard; or

(2) Deposit litter on public or private property while such vehicle is on a public road.”

A similar duty is imposed with respect to any covering on a load that is being carried. See Georgia statute O.C.G.A., § 40-6-248.1.

If a load or part of a load falls from a vehicle and an accident, injury or property damages is caused thereby, the owner of the vehicle has breached his or her duty and, as noted, can be held liable under theories of negligence.

 

Acworth Auto Accidents Attorneys – Legal Principles Under Federal Trucking Regulations

 

In addition to Georgia law, trucks must comply with various federal highway and safety regulations. There are, for example, regulations set out in the Cargo Securement Handbook published by the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration. See here.

In general, there are two reasons that a load might fall from a truck or vehicle: (i) improper/insufficient restraints or tie-downs and (ii) improper distribution of the weight of the load (that is, too far to one side or too far front/back). Proper distribution and sufficiently strong tie-downs are needed to prevent the loads and cargos from falling off the truck because of inertial forces. As an example, as the truck is moving forward, so it the cargo. When the truck brakes, the cargo retains its forward momentum and the cargo will continue moving forward unless it is properly tied down and secured.

The Handbook establishes regulations for tying down cargo for all directions: forward/back, to each side and upwards based on percentage of weight. Thus, for example, the tie-downs, restraints and all anchor points for any cargo must be strong enough to withstand 80 percent of the weight/force of the cargo in the forward direction, 50 percent in the rearward direction, 50 percent side-to-side and 20 percent in the upward direction.

In addition to the strength of the restraints and anchor points, all of the components must be in good working order. Thus, there should be no obvious damage, no weakened knots or connectors, no frayed ropes, etc.

 

Acworth Auto Accidents Attorneys — Speed and Hazard Warnings Matter

 

In addition to the proper distribution and tie-down of the cargo, there are other elements that factor into the question of negligence. The two most important are speed and hazard warnings. As noted, the cargo itself retains the inertial forces of the vehicle as it drives and turns. Logically, if a truck or vehicle is driving slowly, the inertial forces “given” to the cargo is also slow. Conversely, a truck blasting down the road at a high rate of speed is imparting to its cargo the same high rate of speed. If there is a need for a sudden braking or deceleration, more strength is needed to stop the inertia of the cargo — force is a combination of mass and speed. In practical terms, a fast moving vehicle with a loose load is more likely to be held liable than a slow moving vehicle.

In addition, hazard warnings are an important factor. A driver who provides sufficient hazard warnings might avoid liability even if the load is improperly secured.

As can be seen, these types of accidents can be quite complex with respect to why the load/cargo came loose and the rules and regulations that apply. It is important to hire Georgia team of auto accident lawyers with experience in working up and resolving complex truck accident cases.

 

Acworth Auto Accidents Lawyers: Contact the Roger Ghia Law Offices Today

For more information, contact the Kennesaw accident and personal injury attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices We provide legal services for the residents of Cobb County including the communities of Kennesaw, Acworth, Marietta and the surrounding areas. Click here to schedule your consultation.

Kennesaw, GA Attorney

Google+
Facebook
Yelp

Phone: (770) 792-1000

1301 Shiloh Rd NW #430
Kennesaw, GA 30144