In February of 2010, the same Georgia State Trooper went through another red light in Atlanta and crashed into an oncoming car. Thankfully, no one got hurt that time. The review board found him at fault for failing to yield the right of way to a vehicle making a left turn in front of him at the intersection of H.E. Holmes Drive and Burton Road. The Trooper received a "letter of concern" following this incident.

The Trooper was fired shortly after the accident that caused the death of Kathy Porter but it is a much larger issue than just one trooper. Georgia State Patrol troopers have caused at least 99 wrecks from January 2011 through March 2012, averaging about one every four days.

Police officers are sworn to protect and serve our communities. The vast majority do a great job of carrying out this oath, but police departments must develop police chase protocols that consider a cost-benefit analysis of when to chase a non-violent traffic offender. Narrowly tailored police chase protocols will reduce property damage and put fewer innocent bystanders at risk.

So do you have any rights when a potential employer asks for your Facebook password and access to THOSE pictures from THAT trip? Recently, The United States Congress considered an amendment to the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012 that would ban employers from demanding the passwords of employees' social media accounts. The amendment was voted down so an individual has no rights to protect their social media passwords. Last week, the Maryland General Assembly went in a different direction by enacting a statewide ban of employers demanding access to private material on social media. However, the law still allows Maryland businesses to access the public profiles of anyone they are considering for employment.

Social media has become a new arena for civil litigation, as courts have produced 600 published opinions addressing issues of social media since the beginning of 2010. These cases involve everything from a Connecticut court not allowing Facebook status updates to impeach a witness, to a Virginia plaintiff being sanctioned for 'cleansing' his Facebook page in hopes of appealing to a jury. Social media can only hurt your case while civil litigation is pending because opposing counsel will access your profiles to informally discover as much information as possible. So we recommend writing down birthdays and refraining from all social media until your dispute is resolved.

It is very important to be conscious of the things you are doing and saying on social media. It would be wise to delete all social media content while applying for jobs, unless you are the model citizen. The majority of social medial litigation involves privacy but Americans retain basic freedoms of speech that not all countries have. Swaziland, a Southern African country, has proposed a law that will make it illegal to criticize its monarch on social media. While you are free to criticize The President, you should be prepared to face consequences for criticizing your boss or co-workers.

The verdict also included $218,000 awarded to the woman's husband for loss of consortium. Loss of consortium is designed to compensate the spouse of a plaintiff when there is a deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor.

An additional $109,416 was awarded for two years of interest paid under Georgia's Unliquidated Damages Interest Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-14. Under this law, when a party offers to settle for a specific amount, the other party has 30 days within which to meet the demand. If the party does not settle, and there is a verdict in excess of the offer then interest is added to the judgment for the period of time that has expired since the offer to settle was made. In this case, almost two years had expired since plaintiff offered to settle the car accident case for $1 million. Although, the insurer engaged in settlement negotiations, their maximum counter-offer was $250,000.

Experienced attorneys work hard to value cases, in part because of the Unliquidated Damages Interest Act. Careful investigation and review of medical records by a plaintiff's lawyer can often help guide the defendant to a realistic view of the injuries and value of the case. When you need an attorney, look for an experienced trial lawyer who will give focused attention to your case.

The majority of the Toyota litigation has yet to come to trial. Toyota recently requested that most of the cases be sent to arbitration, because almost all customers who bought or leased their cars signed arbitration agreements as a part of their sales contracts. A U.S. District Judge in Santa Ana, California,ruled that Toyota cannot force the named plaintiffs into arbitration and their claims will proceed to trial. The Judge noted that Toyota waived its right to compel arbitration because they have encouraged plaintiffs to litigate in traditional court settings and it would be unfair to the customers if they were ordered into arbitration now.

It is unlikely that the majority of the plaintiffs read and understood how agreeing to arbitration would affect their available legal options if their cars randomly accelerated. Arbitration clauses are an agreement to resolve a dispute outside of the traditional court system. The parties are required to select an arbitrator who will make a binding decision, without a judge or jury, no appeal process and most rules of evidence do not apply. Arbitration makes settling disputes more efficient for both parties but there is no guarantee of a fair legal process for plaintiffs without a jury and no right of appeal. If all cases were resolved through mediation, Plaintiffs would have their claims resolved faster without having to retain lawyers while Toyota would save billions of dollars in legal fees.

Most sales contracts provide arbitration clauses, as they have become industry standards for an increasing number of products and services. You most likely signed an arbitration agreement to purchase your car, your house, or your cell phone. As always, it is important to read everything you sign, but most merchants stand on higher ground when negotiating the terms of an agreement. For example, you cannot get a cell phone from a major carrier in the United States unless you first agree to arbitrate any and all potential disputes. The Toyota dealership might come down on the price of the car but they will not remove an arbitration clause from a contract because it protects them from costly litigation just in case your Prius decides to randomly accelerate on the way home.

Arbitration is rapidly becoming a popular way to settle disputes, even in professional sports. Hiring a lawyer is optional but any business that includes an arbitration clause will certainly be represented by their lawyers at arbitration. As mentioned above, arbitration is binding and you only get one chance to settle your claim before it goes away forever.

The Boston University School of Medicine's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy confirmed that Shane was suffering from a degenerative brain disease Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) linked to repetitive head trauma.

Researchers believe the beating Shane took as an NFL lineman led to his brain's deterioration. It is estimated that a NFL lineman takes 1,000 or more hits every season accumulating to tens of thousands of ultimately subconcussive hits, resulting in overt concussion symptoms such as dizziness, short-term memory loss and confusion but could still cause brain damage.

The number of subconcussive hits Shane Dronett took likely started when Shane played youth and high school football continuing to accumulate as he became an All-American at The University of Texas. Increasing awareness and understanding of the dangers of concussions have shaped a more proactive approach to the problem on a professional level, but the overwhelming majority of head injuries are suffered by student athletes in a broad range of sports.

There are 1.6 to 3.8 million concussions per year among teenage athletes and as many as 80% go unrecognized or are not treated properly. The NFL has the funds to keep physicians on staff, but most high school athletic departments do not. Students feel pressure to return to the field in hopes of impressing scouts and receiving scholarships. Therefore it is imperative for coaches and parents to monitor the activities of these student athletes and seek the proper medical attention if a head injury occurs.

If you or a loved one experience a head injury, it is important that you see a doctor for appropriate diagnosis especially if you notice a change in sleep patterns, confusion, fatigue or mood swings. If in fact you have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury such as a concussion, seeking help quickly will increase your chances of a full recovery. Athletes with multiple concussions were 7.7 times more likely to experience a major drop in memory performance.

Taking issue with these similarities, Apple filed a lawsuit with the United States International Trade Commission in Washington, DC, claiming that HTC, a Taiwanese based Android manufacturer, infringed 10 iPhone patents. The International Trade Commission ruled in Apple's favor last month, finding that HTC infringed one of Apple's patents. Specifically, the "data-tap" technology that allows users to dial a number in a text message or email by simply clicking on the number.

The ruling means that HTC can no longer import phones with this dialing technology, starting April 19, 2012. This ends a two year legal battle for Apple, as they are developing a reputation for aggressively protecting their intellectual property through lawsuits. Apple recently lost similar patent cases in Australian Federal Court and U.S. District Court in San Jose, California against Samsung Electronics.

Four former National Football League players have filed suit in Atlanta against the league for personal injury, asserting that the NFL ignored years of evidence that repeated blows to the head were causing serious and traumatic brain damage to NFL players. The suits are the first of about 30 that will be filed on behalf of ex-NFL players and, in many cases, their wives.

The players claim that the NFL not only failed to take effective action to protect players from head injuries, but failed to inform players of the risks associated with concussions. Instead, the NFL chose to misrepresent and/or conceal medical evidence through its 'hand-picked' committee of physicians who were purportedly researching same, according to the plaintiffs. While athletes in other professional sports who had suffered concussions were being effectively 'shut down' for long periods of time or full seasons, NFL protocol was to return players who had suffered concussions to the very game in which they suffered the injury.

The four men say they continue to suffer from headaches, insomnia, dizziness and dementia. Plaintiffs include Jamal Lewis, Dorsey Levins, Fulton Kuykendall and Ryan Stewart. Lewis, 32, played for the Baltimore Ravens and the Cleveland Browns and is one of only five players to rush for over 2,000 yards in one season. Levens, 41, played for the Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants and the Green Bay Packers. Kuykendall retired in 1985 after 10 years with the Atlanta Falcons that earned him the nickname "Kaptain Krazy" for his enthusiastic assaults on opposing players. Stewart spent five seasons with the Detroit Lions and now commentates for ESPN.

If you or a loved one experience a head injury, it is important that you see a doctor for appropriate diagnosis especially if you notice a change in sleep patterns, confusion, fatigue or mood swings. If in fact you have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury such as a concussion, seeking help quickly will increase your chances of a full recovery. Up to 15% of those diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury have persistent disabilities.

Yesterday, Scott Commander was interviewed by Atlanta WSB TV concerning two women killed as the result of a Clayton County police chase crash and his representation of their family. He stated that similar to the recent New Year's Eve police pursuit crash, the suspect in the Clayton County case was chased by police for a nonviolent traffic offense (impeding the flow of traffic). The Clayton County high speed pursuit ended when the suspect's car crashed into the victims.

Kathy Porter, the wife of Atlanta Braves athletic trainer Jeff Porter, was killed in a violent police chase car wreck on New Years Eve. On the way to the Chick-fil-A Bowl game at about 4:40 pm with their son and another friend, Mr. Porter had the right of way at the intersection of Capitol Avenue and Memorial Drive in downtown Atlanta when his Ford Expedition was struck by a speeding Georgia State Patrol car. The trooper was en route to assist in an I-20 police pursuit of a motorcyclist who had failed to yield when he struck the Porter's SUV.

Police pursuits have become a controversial topic as more and more innocent bystanders are suffering injuries. Former Atlanta Police Chief and current Clayton County Commission Chairman, Eldrin Bell likened police pursuits to "firing a gun at a crowded shopping center." Bell has also suggested that police pursuits should be banned in Georgia due to the low probability of catching serious criminals, the use of more sophisticated technology, like traffic cameras, and high costs associated with lawsuits and damage to the city.

In 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported a total of 743 fatalities due to car crashes involving police pursuit. Of that number, Georgia reported 25 fatalities due to the police chase of a suspect. The NHTSA acknowledges that its numbers are not complete due to the lack of a mandatory reporting system. There is no way to know exactly how many other deaths and injuries in Georgia were a result of police chases. In fact, the crashes that occur as a result of a police chase are often categorized as occurring after the chase terminated making the crash not "pursuit-related."

According to an FBI report, most police chases ending in a death or injury involve a traffic violation stop, not the pursuit of a violent offender. In Georgia, police agencies have guidelines in place for officers to follow in weighing the need to apprehend the suspect versus the danger involved to themselves and others. Generally, most guidelines do not allow for the high speed chase of someone who has committed a minor traffic infraction such as running a red light or speeding 30 miles over the limit. Unfortunately, innocent third parties are still often the victims of these high speed chase accidents.

When police pursuit ends in a car accident, particularly where there is a wrongful death or serious personal injury, a lawsuit is often filed against the county or city involved. Unfortunately, this can prove to be a difficult task due to the sovereign immunity granted to the state, its counties and municipalities by the Georgia Constitution. However, there is a very specific exception to sovereign immunity in Georgia that applies to the negligent use of government owned motor vehicles; hence police chases may involve a limited waiver of immunity. Further, due to statutory notice provisions, often referred to as "ante litem," families must act quickly to preserve their rights by providing notice of any potential claim to the state, county or municipality which has jurisdiction over the claim.

We have so many options available through technology to assist in the apprehension of nonviolent traffic offenders that it is time to put them to use and avoid the senseless loss of innocent victims. We extend our deepest sympathy to the Porter family.

The other case involved a jury awarding a plaintiff $1.39 million for injuries from two tractor-trailers colliding, even though the plaintiff was cited for negligently following the lead tractor trailer too closely. The trial consisted of opposing witnesses offering different explanations for why the crash happened, as the defendant claimed that he slowed his tractor-trailer to the minimum speed limit because his engine was overheating. Both trucks were destroyed and their black boxes couldn't be recovered, so their exact speeds couldn't be determined, making the fact finding very difficult for the jury. The jury ultimately believed the plaintiff's version of the events leading up to the collision, presumably because he had significantly more truck driving experience than the defendant driver and the severity of the crash showed that the defendant must have been moving very slowly because only a huge speed differential could have done such damage.

Some may ask, how did the plaintiff win a jury verdict if he was determined to be contributorily negligent in the resulting collision? Georgia is a comparative negligence apportionment state, which means a plaintiff may recover damages as long as they are found to be less at fault than the defendant. The Laurens County jury said the plaintiff's negligence should make him responsible for 37 percent of his damages, leaving the defendant responsible for 63 percent of a $2.2 million verdict. The Nov. 18 verdict included $210,401.28 for medical expenses and $2 million for the pain and suffering of the plaintiff.

Most states, including, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia follow rules similar to Georgia. Currently, only five states, and the District of Colombia, bar recovery if the plaintiff is determined to be at all contributorily negligent in the resulting collision. Thirteen (13) states follow a pure comparative negligence system, meaning a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are found to be 99% at fault. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

Trucking accidents are different from car accidents and require specialized expertise to navigate through the specific motor carrier laws and rules, both Federal and State, that govern trucking companies and their drivers.

Social networks have become the subject of lawsuits, as misappropriation of personal information has become a lightening rod for litigation. Google recently attracted multiple lawsuits and negative press with the launch of Google Buzz, a social network similar to Twitter. Buzz used deceptive tactics to hack personal information from its E-mail service without users' permission, exposing and sharing private data, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Google led Gmail users to believe that they could choose whether or not they wanted to join the Buzz but the options for declining or leaving the social network were ineffective. Google shut down Buzz, reached a settlement where it must submit to independent privacy audits for the next 20 years, agreed to pay 8.5 million dollars to organizations devoted to internet privacy and is forced to pay out $2,500 to each of the 7 named plaintiffs in a separate suit.

Facebook ran into a similar class action lawsuit when it launched an advertising program in 2007, known as Beacon. Beacon tracked activities of Facebook users on over 40 partner websites (Blockbuster, Fandango, Zappos.com, Overstock.com), even if the users are logged off from Facebook and have declined to have their activities broadcast to their Facebook friends. Tracked activities included purchasing a product, signing up for a service and including an item on a wish list. Facebook eventually agreed to shut down Beacon, was required to set up a $9.5 million fund to support online privacy and must pay $41,500 to the 19 plaintiffs named in the lawsuit.

It is no secret that you should be extremely cautious when sharing personal information over the internet but the lawsuits discussed above raise the stakes concerning internet privacy. Imagine what other traps await on the internet if repeatable websites like Facebook and Google are willing to hack personal information. All parents should monitor the activities of their children and I suggest asking yourself two questions:

1) Do I want my grandmother to see this picture or post?

2) Do I want complete strangers knowing that about me, my locations or my activities?

The Georgia Court of Appeals got involved in this issue last month when it did not award punitive damages (intended to punish the wrongdoer) to a couple suing over an accident caused by a driver on his cell phone. The driver at fault owns and operates a glass installation company, a job that requires him to be in his truck for eight to ten hours a day, prompting him to install a desk within his "mobile office." The distracted driver was looking up a number on his cell phone when his "mobile office" struck another vehicle causing $50,000 in damages, not including future surgeries planned for one of the victims.

As explained by the Court of Appeals, Georgia law allows punitive damages in an auto wreck case "when the accident results from a pattern or policy of dangerous driving, such as excessive speeding or driving while intoxicated, but not when a driver simply violates a rule of the road." Driving while intoxicated is a awful crime but studies have shown that using a cell phone while driving delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent.

The maximum penalty for texting while driving is $150, not much of a deterrent considering the unlikelihood of getting caught. The Supreme Court of Georgia will have a final say on the issue of awarding punitive damages if the case mentioned above comes up on appeal.

The issue of deterring drivers from using their cell phones is getting more and more important as smart phones are only getting smarter. Drivers can now control their music, update their Facebook status, shop online, check scores to any game and play scrabble with friends around the world thanks to iPhone, Android and Blackberry software. The Georgia Supreme Court has an opportunity to send a clear message to drivers statewide by awarding punitive damages if they decide to review the case. Cell phones are a great way to stay connected to whatever an individual finds important, but most communications can wait until a driver reaches their destination. Negligent use of a cell phone should never be as important as protecting fellow drivers and pedestrians.

Baylor University took action, fearing the defection of Texas A&M may lead to a Big 12 breakup, leaving Baylor in a less prestigious league with less TV revenue dollars. Baylor's president, Ken Starr (famous for nearly bringing down President Clinton) sent an email to University of Georgia President Michael Adams outlining potential financial damages if Texas A&M left the Big 12. Baylor is estimated to lose more than $20 million in annual TV revenue and merchandising if the Big 12 dissolved.

This dispute plays out as the typical small town plaintiff, Baylor - a Baptist university with 13,000 students, against big business, Texas A&M - a state school with 50,000 students and NFL alumni. Baylor is situated to lose more money than other schools because it is the only private school in the conference and is considered an afterthought because it does not have the rich traditions, size, public funding and notoriety of conference rivals.

Experts have suggested that the threat of a lawsuit was a legal tactic used to stall Texas A&M from leaving the Big 12. However, conference realignment cases have prevailed in the past. Last fall, the Western Athletic Conference sued Nevada and Fresno State in hopes of keeping them from defecting to the Mountain West Conference. The two schools agreed to remain in the WAC one more year and would pay a buyout of $900,000 each. In 2003, members of the Big East sued to prevent Boston College, the University of Miami and Virginia Tech from joining the Atlantic Coast Conference. A settlement was reached where the five Big East plaintiff schools to receive $1 million each.

The good news is that no matter which conference your team ends up in, they will start the season undefeated 2012.

The State of Georgia Office of Insurance is a great resource for beginning research into your rights under automobile policies in Georgia. This governmental office provides consumers in Georgia with help in dealing with issues with your insurer. Additionally, the Georgia Department of Transportation provides motor vehicle accident analysis and information including important safety information.

In Georgia, passengers in automobile accidents can often recover under their own automobile policies or those of a family member with whom they live. That is why this passenger's residency was so important to his ability to recover under a $1 million dollar policy held by his step-father.

If the worst happens, and you or a family member are involved in a car accident, please seek help in determining what insurance coverage may be available to you. It can make all the difference in whether you obtain all that you are entitled to or not.

The good news is there is a very specific exception to sovereign immunity in Georgia that applies to the negligent use of government owned motor vehicles; hence police chases may involve a limited waiver of immunity. Georgia law provides that a government entity's sovereign immunity may be waived up to the limits of liability insurance secured by the entity for damages arising out of the ownership or use of a motor vehicle. Not all, but many counties and cities in Georgia insure their police vehicles for liability which allows for this limited waiver of immunity in police pursuit car accident cases.

Most recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals held in McCobb v. Clayton County, a wrongful death case involving a high speed police chase, that Clayton County had waived its sovereign immunity up to the monetary limits of the liability insurance it had purchased for coverage of negligent use of its motor vehicles. In this case, the plaintiff had argued under OCGA 40-6-6 that the police officer engaged in the high speed pursuit of a vehicle had acted with reckless disregard for proper law enforcement procedures and the public safety causing a fatal accident. Interestingly, the police vehicle never touched the other vehicle - instead, the driver lost control while being chased and crashed into a tree killing the passenger. The County argued that once plaintiff showed a waiver of sovereign immunity by the county's purchase of a liability policy covering its police vehicles for "negligent use", the plaintiff was then precluded from arguing the police officer acted with disregard for proper police procedures and the public safety in chasing the vehicle thus preventing the plaintiff from showing that the police officer's conduct was the proximate cause of the injury, a necessary element to the plaintiff's case.

The Appellate Court found the County's argument "nonsensical" ruling that the fact the waiver of sovereign immunity was couched in terms of "negligent use" of a motor vehicle did not preclude the plaintiff from making a claim under OCGA 40-6-6 that the police officer acted without due regard for the public safety causing the wrongful death of plaintiff's decedent and allowing the plaintiff to sue Clayton County for damages up to the amount of liability insurance it carried on its police vehicles.