Page 13 - Chris Book.docx

Potential Pitfall: I know first-hand of horror stories involving

insurance companies and their “expert witnesses” arriving at the scene
of an accident and spoiling evidence to cover up their insured’s mistake.

Remember, insurance companies have teams of lawyers and expert
witnesses ready to investigate and attempt to deny liability. You deserve
to have a team behind you.

Comparative Negligence. Occasionally, multiple parties are at
fault in an accident. For example, Negligent Ned is an ambulance driver

who has been called to assist in a medical emergency. Ned activates his
emergency lights and sirens and heads down Washington Road in
Augusta, Georgia, toward the scene of the emergency. In the process, Ned

slows (but not stops) at a red light and proceeds into the intersection. At
the same time, Cathy has the green light, but because of her radio, she does
not hear the ambulance. As she proceeds into the intersection, Ned and

Cathy collide.
Georgia follows a “Modified Comparative Negligence Rule.”
This means that if the claimant’s actions are found to be 50% or more

responsible for his or her accident, then the claimant cannot recover
damages in court. If the claimant is less than 50% at fault, then the amount

of damages that the claimant may receive is reduced by the claimant’s
percentage of fault. For example, in the case above, assume Cathy was
4
injured and sues Ned. After all the evidence is heard, assume the jury

finds that Cathy is 51% at fault because she had her radio too loud and
should have been paying attention. Under this scenario, Cathy is not

entitled to damages. On the other hand, assume that the jury found that
the ambulance driver was 90% at fault because he should have made sure
the intersection was clear before entering, and Cathy was found to be 10%

4 O.C.G.A. § 51-11-7 (2013).
13