Last month, the Georgia Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division did me the great honor of giving me the “Young Litigator of the Year” award, primarily because of my role in the Walden v. Chrysler verdict.  They asked me to write a little bit about the case and kind of work that our law firm, Butler Kahn, does. The Walden case reminded me that litigation is for real. What I mean is that litigation is about real tragedies, involves real people, and causes real consequences. We lawyers can forget that. Too often lawyers play ‘games’ by misconstruing the law to a tri ..read more

In one classic Seinfeld episode, a rental car company did not have a car for Jerry, even though he had made a reservation. Jerry tells the customer service rep, “You know how to take a reservation, you just don’t know how to hold the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation – the holding.” Watch it here. Many Butler Kahn clients are injured because companies did not follow safety protocol. Like the rental car company in Seinfeld, these real-life companies know how to (and do) create and document safety rules; BUT, they don’t know or follow their own rules – whi ..read more

The evidence is piling up. There have been admissions, crash tests, government investigations, recalls, and even a jury verdict. All of that evidence proves that the Jeeps with rear gas tanks, which can explode when they’re hit in the rear, are deadly-dangerous. Yet the manufacturer of the Jeeps—Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (“FCA”)—refuses to admit the obvious truth: these vehicles are defective. The evidence is overwhelming: The gas tanks are located only 11 inches from the rear of the Jeeps, and hang down 6 inches. That is in the crush zone. FCA’s own engineer (Judson Estes) admitted under oat ..read more

What Law Applies: Georgia’s Choice of Law Rule in Tort Cases An important legal component in every case is determining what law applies. The answer to this question in many instances determines whether a plaintiff has a viable case. This blog post will analyze Georgia’s approach to choice of law issues in tort cases. What Law Applies for a Tort Committed in Georgia? In tort cases, Georgia courts apply a choice of law rule known as “lex loci delicti.” Dowis v. Mud Slingers, Inc., 279 Ga. 808 (2005). Under this rule, the substantive law of the state where the tort was committed applies to t ..read more

Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, three members of a Franklin County Georgia family were killed when Marco Tulio Hernandez-Ramirez, while driving under the influence of alcohol, crossed over the center line and caused a fatal collision. Choosing to drive while under the influence of alcohol is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions a person can make. In Georgia, when a person causes a motor vehicle collision that injures another individual or damages property, the injured victim may be able to recover punitive damages from the at-fault driver in addition to damages for ..read more

In a professional malpractice case a jury is asked to determine whether a professional caused the plaintiff’s injury by deviating from the standard of care. These cases present complex issues that are often difficult for jurors to understand, and it is unlikely that any particular juror will be trained in the same field as the defendant professional. Because of this, the law allows expert witnesses to testify and assist the jury in understanding these issues. Expert Witness Requirements Under Georgia law, there are several requirements that an expert witness must meet before he or she may test ..read more

Part one of this two-part blog explored the requirements for imposing liability under the Family Purpose Doctrine. This blog will look at a closely related concept known as the Negligent Entrustment Theory. What is Negligent Entrustment? Like the Family Purpose Doctrine, the Negligent Entrustment Theory is used to impose liability on a vehicle owner for injuries caused by another person’s negligent driving. The difference, however, is that direct liability, as opposed to vicarious liability, is being imposed. Ridgeway v. Whisman, 210 Ga. App. 169 (1993). This difference is important ..read more

Often after a motor vehicle collision, it’s obvious who the responsible parties are—the at-fault driver, possibly the vehicle manufacturer, and possibly the premises owner. One less obvious and regularly overlooked party, is the owner of the vehicle being driven by the at-fault driver. Georgia law provides two ways of holding a vehicle owner responsible for a collision that occurred while someone else was using their vehicle. These are the Family Purpose Doctrine and the Negligent Entrustment Theory. Part one of this two part blog will explain the requirements for holding a vehicle owner respo ..read more

At Butler Kahn, we prepare cases for trial. When we accept a client for representation, it’s because our client wants trial lawyers who will litigate a case from the beginning to the end. Not all law firms do that—some take in lots of cases and settle them quickly, never intending to set foot in a courtroom. That’s not how we practice law. We take only a small number of cases so we can invest our time, energy, and capital into every case we handle. When it comes to trial preparation, our end-goal is always the same: open and honest communication with the jury. We sometimes use focus group ..read more

Like legal jargon, medical terminology, and Bob Dylan’s recent lyrics, the language of automobile insurance can be hard to understand. To make it harder, the person trying to explain the different insurance types to you is usually the person trying to sell you the insurance, making it difficult to know what you can trust. This page addresses the three types of automobile insurance coverage you’re most likely to hear about—liability, uninsured motorist, and medical payments coverages—and explains the differences. (The terms in this article may apply to other states, but the article was written ..read more